Web Survey Bibliography
Title Visual Analogue Scales: Non-linear Data Categorization by Transformation with Reduced Extremes
Author Funke, F., Reips, U. -D.
Year 2006
Access date 20.09.2006
Abstract Two different ways of analyzing data from visual analogue scales (VAS) have been compared to one another: linear transformation that is commonly used, and transformation with reduced extremes. The VAS that have been examined here consist of horizontal lines with verbal anchors at both ends. VAS values can be determined accurate to a pixel and fall into the category of continuous response formats. By generating data on interval scale level, they meet important requirements for the applicability of parametric procedures. In two online experiments the influence of VAS on the respondent's way of answering questions has been examined in comparison to (4-, 5-, and 8-point) categorical scales.
As expected, the two response formats had no influence on central statistical parameters. Although, on the face of it, they appeared to be equivalent, it could be shown that the commonly used linear transformation of VAS' values results in systematic differences. This means that the use of different response formats can lead to different interpretations. An alternative way of categorizing data obtained from VAS is therefore suggested, and in the first experiment it could be demonstrated that by using this alternative data from both response formats turned out to be actually equivalent.
To be able to compare the frequencies of categorical scales with VAS, segments of the VAS have to be put together to form categories. Two ways of categorizing data have been examined. The first one consists in linear transformation, where equal intervals of the VAS are put together to form one category. This leads to equally spaced categories with same size and distance and represents the transfer of the VAS' characteristics onto categorical scales. The second way is the use of transformation with reduced extremes. The segments on the VAS that are put together to form the extreme categories are smaller here than the segments that form the other categories. Transformation with reduced extremes leads to greater correspondence with the frequencies on categorical scales and, all in all, is clearly superior to linear transformation. Since on VAS the extreme categories are represented by smaller intervals than the other categories, they appear to be less important to the respondent. This means that the centers of categories and categorical scales have different distances so that they are not perceived as equidistant.
In a second experiment - to take into account the reduced distances of the extreme categories - the categorical scales were optically modified according to the transformation procedure with reduced extremes. The space between the radio buttons (i.e. categories) is no longer the same but represents the reduced extremes. The distance between the outermost button and the adjoining one is smaller than the distance between the other buttons. The aim is to create a scale whose categories are perceived as having the same distances so that the required equidistance is no longer violated.
As expected, the two response formats had no influence on central statistical parameters. Although, on the face of it, they appeared to be equivalent, it could be shown that the commonly used linear transformation of VAS' values results in systematic differences. This means that the use of different response formats can lead to different interpretations. An alternative way of categorizing data obtained from VAS is therefore suggested, and in the first experiment it could be demonstrated that by using this alternative data from both response formats turned out to be actually equivalent.
To be able to compare the frequencies of categorical scales with VAS, segments of the VAS have to be put together to form categories. Two ways of categorizing data have been examined. The first one consists in linear transformation, where equal intervals of the VAS are put together to form one category. This leads to equally spaced categories with same size and distance and represents the transfer of the VAS' characteristics onto categorical scales. The second way is the use of transformation with reduced extremes. The segments on the VAS that are put together to form the extreme categories are smaller here than the segments that form the other categories. Transformation with reduced extremes leads to greater correspondence with the frequencies on categorical scales and, all in all, is clearly superior to linear transformation. Since on VAS the extreme categories are represented by smaller intervals than the other categories, they appear to be less important to the respondent. This means that the centers of categories and categorical scales have different distances so that they are not perceived as equidistant.
In a second experiment - to take into account the reduced distances of the extreme categories - the categorical scales were optically modified according to the transformation procedure with reduced extremes. The space between the radio buttons (i.e. categories) is no longer the same but represents the reduced extremes. The distance between the outermost button and the adjoining one is smaller than the distance between the other buttons. The aim is to create a scale whose categories are perceived as having the same distances so that the required equidistance is no longer violated.
Access/Direct link Conference homepage (abstract)
Year of publication2006
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Full text availabilityNon-existant
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.