Re: 4-point scale still valid?

["Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>]

Thinking about this.

Roger Dingledine wrote:
> 
> our list of options is:
> Rank the following in terms of importance (low, moderately low,
> moderately high, high):
> 
> Here are Karsten's original arguments for using a 4-point scale:
 
<snip>
 
> I asked a political science friend her opinion on this, and she wrote:
> 
> ---
> 
> 1. I think it's perfectly fair, and more to the point, useful,
> for a respondent to feel neutral about something. If they

I'm checking on some survey references, and I'm finding that the Likert
scale often is given as a five-response sddsaa

> 2. Even if you accept his argument, it's not relevant to the scale.
> He objects to having -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 because he doesn't like the

No, that's not it.

> ---
> 
> Thoughts? Arguments? I'm beginning to think 4 is a bit small too.
> --Roger

-- 
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com)

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
    Welchen Teil von "gestalt" verstehen Sie nicht?

web:       http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
SAS/Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html    

 10:51am  up 30 days,  8:20,  6 users,  load average: 1.32, 1.23, 1.09