The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data
Abstract
The problem of analysing subjective measurements arises in many fields, particularly those concerning sensory testing or attitude scaling. Subjects are asked to rate their opinions on a scale consisting of, say, 6 or 7 ordered categories. A typical scale might be: 'Excellent, Very good, Good, Not very good, Poor, Very poor'. The statistical analysis of such data presents difficulties. Arbitrary scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are often used and analysed by analysis of variance methods on the assumption either that the necessary criteria are satisfied or that the test is sufficiently robust for it not to matter. In our experience, however, simple integer scores often produce distributions for which such assumptions are unjustified. The data can, for instance, be very skew, because of bunching of observations towards one end of the rating scale. An optimal scoring procedure was first suggested by Fisher [1938]. It was optimal in the sense that the scores assigned to the scale categories naximised the ratio of the treatment sum of squares to the total sum of squares. Bradley, Katti and Coons [19621 have further developed this procedure, restraining the scores to lie in the same order as the scale categories; Fisher's method takes no account of scale order. But by maximizing the stated ratio, without regard to distribution assumptions, one is liable in significance testing to assume too small a probability, and thereby incorrectly reject the null hypothesis. A method based upon assumptions of normal distribution theory is preferable.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Regression Models for Ordinal Data
McCullagh, P. (1980) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1980.tb01109.x · Cited by 4,453
Sire evaluation for ordered categorical data with a threshold model
Gianola, D., & Foulley, J. (1983) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-15-2-201 · Cited by 593
Theory and Analysis of Threshold Characters
Gianola, D. (1982) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas1982.5451079x · Cited by 502
Analysis of survival data by the proportional odds model
Bennett, S. (1983) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780020223 · Cited by 465
Autism, affective and other psychiatric disorders: Patterns of familial aggregation
BOLTON, P. F., PICKLES, A., MURPHY, M., & RUTTER, M. (1998) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291797006004 · Cited by 387
Metadata
- Authors
- Snell, E. J.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1964-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 592
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2312618175
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.83
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2528498
- The paper
- Snell, E. J. (1964). A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498
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.