Re: 4-point scale still valid?

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

In message <35AA4EBF.DAE93A38@ix.netcom.com>, kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
>I'm checking on some survey references, and I'm finding that the Likert
>scale often is given as a five-response: strong agreement, mild
>agreement, mild disagreement, strong disagreement, no preference.
>
>I think this makes sense for what we're looking for.  I'd translate
>these as:
>
> SA:	I would require this feature in an OS I purchase/aquire.
> MA:	I would purchase/aquire the OS offering this feature over other
>OSs, all else equal
> MD:	I would not purchase/aquire the OS offering this feature over other
>OSs, all else equal.
> SD:	I will not purchase/aquire an OS offering this feature.
> NP:	This feature does not affect my purchase decision at all.
[snip]
>> 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.  Actually, I'm not quite sure how you'd score
>results, but it wouldn't be a simple numerical summation of values. 
>Quantitative response is inappropriate as these are rank ordinal, and
>not quantitative measures.  Using numeric values to codify responses is
>a seperate issue, but you could as easily use -2 - +2, 0 - 4, 1 - 5, 102
>- 107, or A - E.  I'd prefer an alpha scheme as this prevents anyone
>from doing something grossly inaccurate such as summing responses.

No, I'm not talking about scoring in terms of doing statistics on survey
results. I'm talking about scoring in terms of positive or negative
impressions of an issue. Realistically, is anybody going to say "No, I
will not buy an OS that allows me to run graphics remotely"? "No, I will
not buy an OS that has multiprocessor support"? Maybe we should slide up
the scoring scale you wrote above from -2..2 to 0..4.

The counter to this is "well, yes, but you're just assuming that. How
do you *know* they don't mind having multiprocessor support in their
OS? Isn't that why you're writing a survey?" to which I have no answer.
(Except maybe an appeal to common sense, but that isn't very concrete
either. :)

--Roger