QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT
- For compilations of indexes and scales used in so-
cial research, see Brodsky and Smitherman (1983),
Miller (1991), Robinson and colleagues (1972), Robin-
son and Shaver (1969), and Schuessler (1982).
- For a discussion of weighted and unweighted index
scores, see Nunnally (1978:534).
- Feeling thermometers are discussed in Wilcox and
associates (1989).
- For more information on Likert scales, see Anderson
and associates (1983:252–255), Converse (1987:72–75),
McIver and Carmines (1981:22–38), and Spector (1992).
- Some researchers treat Likert scales as interval-level
measures, but there is disagreement on this issue. Statis-
tically, whether the Likert scale has at least five response
categories and an approximately even proportion of
people answer in each category makes little difference.
- McIver and Carmines (1981:16–21) have an excel-
lent discussion of Thurstone scaling. Also see discus-
sions in Anderson and colleagues (1983:248–252),
Converse (1987:66–77), and Edwards (1957). The
example used here is partially borrowed from Churchill
(1983:249–254), who described the formula for scoring
Thurstone scaling.
- The social distance scale is described in Converse
(1987:62–69). The most complete discussion can be
found in Bogardus (1959).
- The semantic differential is discussed in Nunnally
(1978:535–543). Also see Heise (1965, 1970) on the
analysis of scaled data.
- See Guttman (1950).
- See Bailey (1987:349–351) for a discussion of an
improved method for determining scalability called
minimal marginal reproducibility. Guttman scaling can
involve more than yes/no choices and a large number
of items, but the complexity increases quickly. A more
elaborate discussion of Guttman scaling can be found in
Anderson and associates (1983:256–260), Converse
(1987:189–195), McIver and Carmines (1981:40–71),
and Nunnally (1978:63–66). Clogg and Sawyer (1981)
presented alternatives to Guttman scaling.
