# A study into mechanisms of attitudinal scale conversion: A randomized stochastic ordering approach

- 19 Downloads

## Abstract

This paper considers the methodological challenge of how to convert categorical attitudinal scores (like satisfaction) measured on one scale to a categorical attitudinal score measured on another scale with a different range. This is becoming a growing issue in marketing consulting and the common available solutions seem too few and too superficial. A new methodology for scale conversion is proposed, and tested in a comprehensive study. This methodology is shown to be both relevant and optimal in fundamental aspects. The new methodology is based on a novel algorithm named *minimum conditional entropy*, that uses the marginal distributions of the responses on each of the two scales to produce a unique joint bivariate distribution. In this joint distribution, the conditional distributions follow a stochastic order that is monotone in the categories and has the relevant optimal property of maximizing the correlation between the two underlying marginal scales. We show how such a joint distribution can be used to build a mechanism for scale conversion. We use both a frequentist and a Bayesian approach to derive mixture models for conversion mechanisms, and discuss some inferential aspects associated with the underlying models. These models can incorporate background variables of the respondents. A unique observational experiment is conducted that empirically validates the proposed modeling approach. Strong evidence of validation is obtained.

## Keywords

Categorical conversion Conditional entropy Mixture models Ordinal attitudinal scales Stochastic ordering## Notes

## References

- Accioly, R., & Chiyoshi, F. (2004). Modeling dependence with copulas: A useful tool for field development decision process.
*Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44*, 8391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity.
*Applied Psychological Measurement, 18*(3), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis.
*Journal of Marketing Research*, 360–375.Google Scholar - Colman, A. M., Morris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales.
*Psychological Reports, 80*(2), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cox, E. P., III. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review.
*Journal of Marketing Research*, 407–422.Google Scholar - DallAglio, G., & Bona, E. (2011). The minimum of the entropy of a two-dimensional distribution with given marginals. Electronic Journal of Statistics. April, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Dawes, J. G. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales.
*International Journal of Market Research, 51*(1).Google Scholar - Dolnicar, S., & Gr un, B. (2013). Translating between survey answer formats.
*Journal of Business Research, 66*(9), 1298–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Elidan, G. (2010). Copula bayesian networks. In J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, J. ShaweTaylor, R. Zemel, & A. Culotta (Eds.),
*Advances in neural information processing systems 23 (pp. 559567). Red hook*. New York: Curran Associates.Google Scholar - Evans, M., Gilula, Z., & Guttman, I. (2012). Conversion of ordinal attitudinal scales: An inferential Bayesian approach.
*Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10*(3), 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilula, Z., Kriger, A. M., & Ritov, Y. (1988). Ordinal Association in Contingency Tables: Some interpretive aspects.
*Journal of the American Statistical Association., 83*(402), 540–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilula, Z., & Haberman, S. J. (1995). Dispersion of categorical variables and penalty functions: Derivation, estimation, and comparability.
*Journal of the American Statistical Association., 80*, 1438–1446.Google Scholar - Gilula, Z., & McCulloch, R. (2013). Multilevel categorical data fusion using partially fused data.
*Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 11*(3), 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1970). Rating scales and information recovery-how many scales and responses categories to use?
*Journal of Marketing, 34*, 33–39.Google Scholar - Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency, annals of.
*Mathematical Statistics, 2*, 7986.Google Scholar - Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
*Psychological Review, 63*, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences.
*Acta Psychologica, 104*, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agreedisagree scales.
*Sociological Methods & Research, 0049124113509605*.Google Scholar - Taylor, A. B., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2006). Loss of power in logistic, ordinal logistic, and probit regression when an outcome variable is coarsely categorized.
*Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66*(2), 228–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar