Subjective rating scales in ergonomics: a reply

被引:12
|
作者
Annett, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Warwick, Dept Psychol, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
关键词
D O I
10.1080/00140130210166762
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Comments on the target paper are acknowledged. Whilst there is still some concern that subjective rating scales are scientifically suspect, the general view is that verbal reports, including ratings, constitute objective data, which can be of considerable value in ergonomics research and practice. The main anxiety attached to their use is to ensure acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Quantification in the strict sense can be achieved by some measures but is by no means essential for all scientific and practical purposes. The value of ordinal and qualitative data obtained by subjective judgements should not be underestimated, especially in predicting future performance. Many commonly used constructs such as fatigue, stress, mental workload, usability, etc. are complex and multidimensional, often combining both 'subjective' and 'objective' measures. The validity of individual dimensions and complex constructs lies principally in their relationships with other variables of interest in the context of the specific investigation. The question of design standards based partly or wholly on such scales should therefore be treated with some caution.
引用
收藏
页码:1042 / 1046
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Reply: The Rasch Model: "Litmus Test" de rigueur for Rating Scales?
    Cano, Stefan J.
    Klassen, Anne F.
    Scott, Amie
    Cordeiro, Peter G.
    Pusic, Andrea L.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 131 (02) : 286E - 288E
  • [22] Comment on 'Inter-rater reliability of delirium rating scales' - Reply
    Bhat, R
    Rockwood, K
    NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 25 (04) : 214 - 214
  • [23] Understanding source effects in ADHD rating scales: Reply to DuPaul (2003)
    Burns, GL
    Gomez, R
    Walsh, JA
    de Moura, MA
    PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 2003, 15 (01) : 118 - 119
  • [24] Reply to: "In Support of Electronic Versions of Movement Disorder Society Rating Scales"
    Turner, Travis H.
    Dale, Marian L.
    MOVEMENT DISORDERS, 2021, 36 (01) : 271 - 271
  • [25] A Multidimensional and Multilevel Extension of a Random-Effect Approach to Subjective Judgment in Rating Scales
    Wang, Wen-Chung
    Qiu, Xue-Lan
    MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2013, 48 (03) : 398 - 427
  • [26] Assessing subjective criticality of take-over situations: Validation of two rating scales
    Roche, Fabienne
    ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2021, 159
  • [27] Importance of Understanding the Validity and Reliability of Visual Analog Scales for Rating of Personality Reply
    Litschel, Ralph
    Tasman, Abel-Jan
    JAMA FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY, 2015, 17 (04) : 311 - 312
  • [28] USE OF SUBJECTIVE RATING
    PHILIPP, U
    KIRCHNER, JH
    REICHE, D
    ERGONOMICS, 1971, 14 (05) : 611 - &
  • [29] Knee rating scales
    Marx, RG
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2003, 19 (10): : 1103 - 1108
  • [30] Measuring the subjective: revisiting the psychometric properties of three rating scales that assess the acute effects of hallucinogens
    Carlos Bouso, Jose
    Jose Pedrero-Perez, Eduardo
    Gandy, Sam
    Angel Alcazar-Corcoles, Miguel
    HUMAN PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, 2016, 31 (05) : 356 - 372