399:, in 2010. Excavators unearthed a tablet dating back to the early medieval period, marked with ancient Georgian script. This tablet showcased a series of linear markings, interpreted as an early form of a rating scale. The inscriptions provided insights into medieval methods of quantification and evaluation, suggesting an embryonic version of modern rating scales. This discovery is currently preserved at the
186:
326:
film is very popular among the audience that views it, and that only those who feel most strongly about the film are inclined to rate the film online; hence the raters are all drawn from the devotees. This combination may lead to very high ratings of the film, which do not generalize beyond the people who actually see the film (or possibly even beyond those who actually rate it).
305:
of the ratings as measures of viewer perceptions. Establishing validity would require establishing both reliability and accuracy (i.e. that the ratings represent what they are supposed to represent). The degree of validity of an instrument is determined through the application of logic/or statistical
316:
Validity is concerned with different aspects of the measurement process. Each of these types uses logic, statistical verification or both to determine the degree of validity and has special value under certain conditions. Types of validity include content validity, predictive validity, and construct
334:
Qualitative description of categories improve the usefulness of a rating scale. For example, if only the points 1-10 are given without description, some people may select 10 rarely, whereas others may select the category often. If, instead, "10" is described as "near flawless", the category is more
325:
Sampling errors can lead to results which have a specific bias, or are only relevant to a specific subgroup. Consider this example: suppose that a film only appeals to a specialist audienceโ90% of them are devotees of this genre, and only 10% are people with a general interest in movies. Assume the
342:
categorizations. While it is not uncommon to calculate averages or means for such data, doing so cannot be justified because in calculating averages, equal intervals are required to represent the same difference between levels of perceived quality. The key issues with aggregate data based on the
146:. Numbers indicate the magnitude of difference between items, but there is no absolute zero point. A good example is a Fahrenheit/Celsius temperature scale where the differences between numbers matter, but placement of zero does not.
277:, which allows users to rate products in relation to several qualities. Most online rating facilities also provide few or no qualitative descriptions of the rating categories, although again there are exceptions such as
281:, which labels each of the categories between F and A+ and BoardGameGeek, which provides explicit descriptions of each category from 1 to 10. Often, only the top and bottom category is described, such as on
293:
Validity refers to how well a tool measures what it intends to measure. With each user rating a product only once, for example in a category from 1 to 10, there is no means for evaluating internal
153:. Numbers indicate magnitude of difference and there is a fixed zero point. Ratios can be calculated. Examples include age, income, price, costs, sales revenue, sales volume and market share.
246:
Rating scales are used widely online in an attempt to provide indications of consumer opinions of products. Examples of sites which employ ratings scales are
105:. Numbers indicate the relative position of items, but not the magnitude of difference. Attitude and opinion scales are usually ordinal; one example is a
383:
An international collaborative research effort has introduced a data-driven algorithm for a rating scale reduction. It is based on the area under the
70:
A rating scale is a method that requires the rater to assign a value, sometimes numeric, to the rated object, as a measure of some rated attribute.
338:
The above issues are compounded, when aggregated statistics such as averages are used for lists and rankings of products. User ratings are at best
547:
Koczkodaj, Waldemar W; Kakiashvili, T.; Szymaลska, A.; Montero-Marin, J.; Araya, R.; Garcia-Campayo, J.; Rutkowski, K.; Strzaลka, D. (2017).
447:
384:
233:
211:
273:
In almost all cases, online rating scales only allow one rating per user per product, though there are exceptions such as
207:
676:
432:
196:
427:
215:
200:
624:""แแ แแ แแก แแฃแชแแแแแแแ, แแแแ แกแแฅแแ แแแแแแจแ แแ แแแ แแฃแแแ แแแแฎแ แแแ แขแแ แแแแแแแก" - แแ แฅแแแแแแแแ แแแแฎแ แแก แฃแคแแแแแก แแแ แแฆแแแแ"
335:
likely to mean the same thing to different people. This applies to all categories, not just the extreme points.
400:
294:
395:
The historical origins of rating scales were reevaluated following a significant archaeological discovery in
671:
306:
procedures. "A measurement procedure is valid to the degree that if measures what it proposes to measure."
160:
an attitude or perception due to the requirement for statistical comparisons between the categories in the
666:
511:
161:
437:
339:
310:
165:
39:
313:
much like television polls, i.e. they represent only the opinions of those inclined to submit ratings.
599:"แแกแแคแแแแจแ แแ แ-แแ แแ แฃแซแแแแแกแ แแแแแแก แแฆแแแแฉแแแแแ แจแแ แจแ แแฎแแแแแแ - แกแแ แแ แแก แแ แแแแแแแแ แแแแแแแแแก แแแแแ?"
150:
143:
102:
58:
and 0-10 rating scales, where a person selects the number that reflecting the perceived quality of a
516:
298:
169:
529:
484:
59:
270:
which use a rating scale from 0 to 100 in order to obtain "personalised film recommendations".
580:
570:
560:
521:
502:
Cronbach, Lee J. (September 1951). "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests".
476:
375:
due to the connection between
Thurstone's law of comparative judgement and the Rasch model.
364:
302:
43:
47:
467:
Andrich, David (December 1978). "A rating formulation for ordered response categories".
359:
Data are not usually published in a form that permits evaluation of the product ratings.
168:, more than one question is required to obtain an index of internal reliability such as
575:
548:
660:
488:
442:
422:
263:
255:
533:
412:
251:
106:
55:
28:
20:
623:
598:
350:
It is usually impossible to evaluate the reliability or validity of user ratings.
372:
185:
172:, which is a basic criterion for assessing the effectiveness of a rating scale.
157:
24:
353:
Products are not compared with respect to explicit, let alone common, criteria.
565:
259:
51:
549:"How to reduce the number of rating scale items without predictability loss?"
309:
Another fundamental issue is that online ratings usually involve convenience
584:
525:
480:
417:
396:
368:
267:
347:
Averages should not be calculated for data of the kind collected.
247:
179:
38:
is a set of categories designed to obtain information about a
651:
78:
All rating scales can be classified into one of these types:
652:
UEQ Semantic differential for measuring the User
Experience
356:
Only users inclined to submit a rating for a product do so.
343:
kinds of rating scales commonly used online are as follow:
19:
For the application of rating scales to voting, see
156:More than one rating scale question is required to
301:. It is therefore impossible to evaluate the
8:
116:e.g. "I could not live without my computer".
214:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
574:
564:
515:
371:methods, the latter being related to the
234:Learn how and when to remove this message
459:
16:Type of informational measurement scale
363:More developed methodologies include
7:
212:adding citations to reliable sources
14:
448:Receiver operating characteristic
385:receiver operating characteristic
184:
97:Descriptive graphic rating scale
149:Some data are measured at the
142:Some data are measured at the
101:Some data are measured at the
1:
433:Rating scales for depression
164:for ordered categories. In
88:Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
695:
428:Questionnaire construction
401:National Museum of Georgia
285:s online rating facility.
82:Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
54:, common examples are the
18:
630:(in Georgian). 2022-06-21
605:(in Georgian). 2022-09-21
566:10.1007/s11192-017-2283-4
176:Rating scales used online
85:Verbal Rating Scale (VRS)
330:Qualitative description
297:using an index such as
379:Rating scale reduction
162:polytomous Rasch model
94:Graphical rating scale
74:Types of rating scales
438:Semantic differential
166:classical test theory
107:Likert response scale
56:Likert response scale
559:(2): 581โ593(2017).
208:improve this section
677:Recommender systems
526:10.1007/BF02310555
481:10.1007/BF02293814
369:Maximum Difference
46:attribute. In the
628:แ แแแแ แแแแแกแฃแคแแแแ
603:แ แแแแ แแแแแกแฃแคแแแแ
244:
243:
236:
124:Strongly disagree
684:
639:
638:
636:
635:
620:
614:
613:
611:
610:
595:
589:
588:
578:
568:
544:
538:
537:
519:
499:
493:
492:
464:
397:Tbilisi, Georgia
365:Choice Modelling
299:Cronbach's alpha
239:
232:
228:
225:
219:
188:
180:
170:Cronbach's alpha
119:Response options
694:
693:
687:
686:
685:
683:
682:
681:
657:
656:
648:
643:
642:
633:
631:
622:
621:
617:
608:
606:
597:
596:
592:
546:
545:
541:
517:10.1.1.452.6417
501:
500:
496:
466:
465:
461:
456:
409:
393:
381:
332:
323:
291:
240:
229:
223:
220:
205:
189:
178:
76:
68:
50:, particularly
48:social sciences
32:
17:
12:
11:
5:
692:
691:
688:
680:
679:
674:
672:Rating systems
669:
659:
658:
655:
654:
647:
646:External links
644:
641:
640:
615:
590:
553:Scientometrics
539:
510:(3): 297โ334.
494:
475:(4): 561โ573.
458:
457:
455:
452:
451:
450:
445:
440:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
408:
405:
392:
389:
380:
377:
361:
360:
357:
354:
351:
348:
331:
328:
322:
319:
290:
287:
242:
241:
192:
190:
183:
177:
174:
144:interval level
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:Strongly agree
134:
131:
128:
125:
120:
117:
114:
99:
98:
95:
92:
89:
86:
83:
75:
72:
67:
64:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
690:
689:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
667:Psychometrics
665:
664:
662:
653:
650:
649:
645:
629:
625:
619:
616:
604:
600:
594:
591:
586:
582:
577:
572:
567:
562:
558:
554:
550:
543:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
518:
513:
509:
505:
504:Psychometrika
498:
495:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:Psychometrika
463:
460:
453:
449:
446:
444:
443:Voting system
441:
439:
436:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
423:Questionnaire
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
410:
406:
404:
402:
398:
390:
388:
386:
378:
376:
374:
370:
366:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
345:
344:
341:
336:
329:
327:
320:
318:
314:
312:
307:
304:
300:
296:
288:
286:
284:
280:
279:Yahoo! Movies
276:
271:
269:
265:
264:BoardGameGeek
261:
257:
256:Yahoo! Movies
253:
249:
238:
235:
227:
224:November 2016
217:
213:
209:
203:
202:
198:
193:This section
191:
187:
182:
181:
175:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
152:
147:
145:
135:
132:
129:
126:
123:
122:
121:
118:
115:
112:
111:
110:
108:
104:
103:ordinal level
96:
93:
90:
87:
84:
81:
80:
79:
73:
71:
65:
63:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
30:
26:
22:
632:. Retrieved
627:
618:
607:. Retrieved
602:
593:
556:
552:
542:
507:
503:
497:
472:
468:
462:
413:Likert scale
394:
382:
362:
337:
333:
324:
315:
308:
292:
282:
278:
274:
272:
252:Epinions.com
245:
230:
221:
206:Please help
194:
155:
148:
141:
100:
77:
69:
40:quantitative
36:rating scale
35:
33:
29:rated voting
21:score voting
373:Rasch model
295:reliability
275:Ratings.net
151:ratio level
44:qualitative
25:STAR voting
661:Categories
634:2024-01-17
609:2024-01-17
454:References
317:validity.
260:Amazon.com
66:Background
52:psychology
512:CiteSeerX
489:120687848
195:does not
113:Statement
585:28490822
534:13820448
407:See also
321:Sampling
311:sampling
303:validity
289:Validity
127:Disagree
576:5400800
418:MaxDiff
391:Origins
340:ordinal
216:removed
201:sources
158:measure
130:Neutral
60:product
583:
573:
532:
514:
487:
268:TV.com
91:Likert
27:, and
530:S2CID
485:S2CID
283:IMDb'
133:Agree
42:or a
581:PMID
266:and
248:IMDb
199:any
197:cite
571:PMC
561:doi
557:111
522:doi
477:doi
403:.
367:or
210:by
663::
626:.
601:.
579:.
569:.
555:.
551:.
528:.
520:.
508:16
506:.
483:.
473:43
471:.
387:.
262:,
258:,
254:,
250:,
109::
62:.
34:A
23:,
637:.
612:.
587:.
563::
536:.
524::
491:.
479::
237:)
231:(
226:)
222:(
218:.
204:.
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
