QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTstatements. Each judge rates the statements on an
underlying continuum (e.g., favorable to unfavor-
able). We examine the ratings and keep some state-
ments based on two factors: (1) agreement among
the judges and (2) the statement’s location on a range
of possible values. The final set of statements is a
measurement scale that spans a range of values.
Thurstone scaling begins with a large number
of statements that cover all shades of opinion. Each
statement should be clear and precise. “Good” state-
ments refer to the present and are not capable of
being interpreted as facts. They are unlikely to be
endorsed by everyone, are stated as simple sen-
tences, and avoid words such as alwaysand never.
We can get ideas for writing the statements from
reviewing the literature, from the mass media, from
personal experience, and from asking others. For
example, statements about the dry cleaning busi-
ness might include the four aspects listed before
plus the following:
I think X Cleaners dry cleans clothing in a
prompt and timely manner.
In my opinion, X Cleaners keeps its stores
looking neat and attractive.
I do not think that X Cleaners does a good job
of removing stains.
I believe that X Cleaners charges reasonable
prices for cleaning coats.
I believe that X Cleaners returns clothing clean
and neatly pressed.
I think that X Cleaners has poor delivery
service.
We would next locate 50 to 300 judges who
should be familiar with the object or concept in
the statements. Each judge receives a set of state-
ment cards and instructions. Each card has one
statement on it, and the judges place each card in
one of several piles. The number of piles is usually
7, 9, 11, or 13. The piles represent a range of values
(e.g., favorable to neutral to unfavorable) with
regard to the object or concept being evaluated.
Each judge places cards in rating piles indepen-
dently of the other judges.
After the judges place all cards in piles, we
create a chart cross-classifying the piles and the
statements. For example, 100 statements and
11 piles results in an 11 100 chart, or a chart with
11 100 = 1,100 boxes. The number of judges
who assigned a rating to a given statement is writ-
ten into each box. Statistical measures (beyond the
present discussion) are used to compute the average
rating of each statement and the degree to which
the judges agree or disagree. We keep the state-
ments with the highest between-judge agreement,
or interrater reliability, as well as statements that
represent the entire range of values. (See Example
Box 7, Example of Thurstone Scaling.)
With Thurstone scaling, we can construct an
attitude scale or select statements from a larger
collection of attitude statements. The method has
four limitations:
It measures agreement or disagreement with
statements but not the intensity of agreement
or disagreement.
It assumes that judges and others agree on
where statements appear in a rating system.
It is time consuming and costly.
It is possible to get the same overall score in
several ways because agreement or disagree-
ment with different combinations of statements
can produce the same average.
3.Bogardus social distance scale.A measure
of the “social distance” that separates social groups
from each other is the Bogardus social distance
scale. We use it with one group to learn how much
distance its members feel toward a target or “out-
group.” Emory Bogardus developed this technique
in the 1920s to measure the willingness of members
of different ethnic groups to associate with each other.
Since then it has been used to see how close or dis-
tant people in one group feel toward some other
group (e.g., a religious minority or a deviant group).^22Bogardus social distance scale A scale measuring
the social distance between two or more social groups
by having members of one group indicate the limit of
their comfort with various types of social interaction or
closeness with members of the other group(s).