Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 811

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review

Cox, Eli P.·1980·Journal of Marketing Research

Abstract

A conceptual framework employing the distinction between stimulus-centered and subject-centered scales is presented as a basis for reviewing 80 years of literature on the optimal number of response alternatives for a scale. Concepts and research from information theory and the absolute judgment paradigm of psychophysics are used. The author reviews the major factors influencing the quality of scaled information, points out areas in particular need of additional research, and makes some recommendations for the applied researcher.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002224378001700401

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Cox, E. P.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Published
1980-11
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
407-422
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
OpenAlex
W2313569764
Cited by
811
References
5
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.