Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:55:34.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Scales Constructed by Three Psychophysical Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Milton A. Saffir
Milton A. Saffir*
Affiliation:
Bureau of Child Study, Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparison is made between the scales constructed by the Method of Paired Comparison, Rank Order, and the Method of Successive Intervals. Application of the three psychophysical methods to handwriting specimens and to nationality preferences results in mutually linear scales. Choice of scaling methods becomes, then, a matter of practical convenience rather than of relative validity.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 1937, pp. 179 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © 1937 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The writer is very much indebted to Professor L. L. Thurstone for the suggestion of this problem and for supervision in carrying out the study.

References

Hevner, Kat. Three Psychophysical Methods. Journal of General Psychology, 1930, 4, 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. C. Thurstone, L. L. Motion Pictures and Social Attitudes of Children, New York: Macmillan, 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. An Experimental Study of Nationality Preferences. Journal of General Psychology, 1928, 1, 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Rank Order as a Psychophysical Method. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1931, 14, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar