Search results

This study provides evidence on the relationship between scale characteristics and participant responses for percentage-based scales (i.e., 101 points) in accounting research. A 4 × 1 between-subjects experiment examines how common labeling designs affect various statistical properties, including means, variance, normality of the distribution, and frequency of responses. The results indicate that labels on percentage-based scales have a significant impact on the distribution of participants' responses. Labeling only the endpoints is the lone condition that results in normally distributed data. Additional analyses suggest that labels on percentage-based scales influence participant responses in multiple ways. First, as the number of labels increases, participants may not adequately consider, and thus ultimately select, unlabeled points. Second, while participants seem to inherently interpret percentage-based scales in quartiles and deciles, labeling as such exacerbates this tendency. Finally, when more labels are present, participants seem to engage an anchoring heuristic when selecting their response. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that accounting researchers may benefit from labeling only the endpoints of percentage-based scales.

The purpose of this paper is to produce up‐to‐date inventories for satisfaction and Likert scales that contain commonly used scale point descriptors and their respective mean scale values and standard deviations.

All data were collected online using the SSI Survey Spot Panel. This panel is national (USA) in scope. Thirty‐nine satisfaction items and 19 agreement items were tested on a random sample consisting of individuals 21‐65 years old.

The mean value and the standard deviation were calculated for each of these descriptors. Even though only six of the items that had been tested by Jones and Thurstone (1955) were included in the list of satisfaction scale descriptors, the semantic meanings of those six have changed very little over the years.

One limitation might be that scale point descriptor inventories developed within the context of health insurance might not be valid in other service contexts.

Since the present study focuses on Likert and satisfaction scales which are frequently used in service environments, the major contribution of this study is to provide services marketers with quantitative measurement of the meanings of commonly used scale point descriptors. This permits the development of successive and/or equal interval scales and thus aids in the analyses of data sets. It will thus help service marketers to develop questionnaires that more accurately reflect actual consumer satisfaction and opinions.

The development of up‐to‐date inventories for satisfaction and Likert scales.

Memory impairments in the elderly have been widely studied in the past. This study focuses on the effects of these memory impairments on the ability of mature consumers to respond to brand attitude scales. An experimental study investigates the impact of age and type of measurement scale on responses to brand attitude scales. Groups of seniors within the elderly market (55‐65, 66‐75, and over 75) are investigated as opposed to contrasting two extreme points on the continuum, namely the elderly versus the young. Three commonly used attitude scales were manipulated to determine how age interacts with the form of scale to generate response bias. Three types of response bias; extremity response, acquiescence, and item non‐response were investigated. Results indicate a significant interaction between age and type of scale. Implications of these results for those involved in marketing to seniors are highlighted.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether different scales and ways to collect reviews and ratings found on online travel agencies (OTAs) can affect hotels, and whether hotels obtain the same or different evaluations.

Hotel ratings from five OTAs in four European markets were collected and compared in pairs. An initial comparison was made with the hotel scores of each OTA to show what a typical user would see. Then, a rescaled score (0-10) was used to compare all the OTA scales appropriately and to distinguish between what customers observe and what the reality is.

The results reveal that Booking.com that uses a scale (2.5-10) and Agoda with a scale (2-10) seem to give higher rating scores than Atrapalo (1-10), Travel Republic (0-10) and hotel reservation service (1-10). However, when the scores are rescaled (0-10), the worst ratings are found on Booking.com followed by Agoda.

OTAs should include, next to the scores, the scale used to rate hotels so as to provide users with better and clearer information. Moreover, rating questionnaires should match the verbal denominations with their numerical values to avoid biased ratings.

OTAs and hotel managers are losing information provided by customers because customers are not aware of the scale when rating hotels. Moreover, hotel ratings are used by potential customers to obtain a clearer image of an establishment. However, if some hotels are being overrated by some scales, customers might have higher expectations, which may not be met.

The unique rating scales of Booking.com and Agoda provide additional insights into their hotel evaluations, which seem to be apparently higher when in fact they are not.

在线旅行评论评分量表及其对酒店得分和竞争力的影响

摘要

这项研究旨在研究在线旅行社（OTA）上评论和评级的不同量表和方式是否会影响酒店获得的评估。

本研究收集并比较了来自四个欧洲市场中五个OTA的酒店等级数据。研究首先对每个OTA的酒店得分进行了比较, 以显示一般用户会看到的内容。然后研究使用重新缩放的得分（0-10）来恰当地比较所有OTA的酒店等级, 并区分顾客观察到的内容和现实。

结果显示, Booking.com使用的量表（2.5-10）和Agoda的量表（2-10）, 似乎高于Atrapalo（1-10）, Travel Republic（0-10）和 hotel reservation service （1-10）的评分。但是, 当分数重新调整为（0-10）时, 最差的评分是在Booking.com上, 其次是Agoda。

OTA应在评分旁边注明用于对酒店进行评分的量表, 以便为用户提供更好, 更清晰的信息。此外, 评级问卷应使评价描述与其数值相匹配, 以避免评级出现偏差。

OTA和酒店经理正在丢失客户所提供的信息, 因为客户在对酒店进行评级时并不了解其使用的量表。此外, 潜在客户使用酒店评级来获得更清晰的企业形象。但是, 如果某些酒店被某些网站的评级量表高估, 那么客户可能会有偏高的期望, 而这些期望可能无法被满足。

Booking.com和Agoda的独特评分等级标准为酒店提供了更多见解, 而实际上酒店的情况可能并非如此。

Las escalas de calificación de las opiniones de los viajes online y sus efectos en la valoración y competitividad de los hoteles.

El objetivo de esta investigación es determinar si las diferentes escalas y formas de recopilar opiniones y valoraciones de las Agencias de Viajes Online (OTAs), pueden afectar a si los hoteles tienen las mismas o distintas calificaciones.

Las calificaciones de hoteles de cinco OTAs en cuatro mercados europeos, se recopilaron y compararon por pares. Se realizó una comparación inicial con las puntuaciones de los hoteles de cada OTA, para mostrar lo que vería un usuario típico. Luego, se utilizó una puntuación de reescalado (0-10), para comparar todas las escalas de las OTAs de manera apropiada y así poder diferenciar entre lo que los clientes observan y lo que es en realidad.

Los resultados revelan que Booking.com, que utiliza una escala (2.5-10) y Agoda con una escala (2-10), parecen puntuar con calificaciones más altas que Atrapalo (1-10), Travel Republic (0-10) y hotel reservation service (1-10). Sin embargo, cuando se vuelven a escalar las puntuaciones (0-10), las peores calificaciones se encuentran en Booking.com, seguida de Agoda.

Las OTAs deben incluir, junto a las puntuaciones, la escala utilizada para calificar los hoteles a fin de proporcionar a los usuarios una información mayor y más clara. Además, los cuestionarios de calificación deben hacer coincidir las denominaciones verbales con sus valores numéricos para evitar calificaciones sesgadas.

Por un lado las OTAs y los gerentes de hoteles, están perdiendo información proporcionada por los clientes, porque los clientes no son conscientes del tipo de escala utilizada cuando califican los hoteles. Por otro lado, los clientes potenciales utilizan las calificaciones de los hoteles para obtener una imagen más clara de un establecimiento. Por lo que en muchos casos, los clientes pueden tener expectativas más altas, que pueden no cumplirse, si los hoteles están siendo sobrevalorados por algunas escalas.

Las escalas de calificación únicas de Booking.com y Agoda, brindan información adicional sobre las evaluaciones de sus hoteles que parecen ser aparentemente más altas cuando en realidad no lo son.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot to test an approach to measuring inter-rater reliability of the Outcomes Star suite of tools. The intention, in publishing this account, is to show transparency in on-going development of the tool, and to invite further co-operative development.

In total, 24 workers, trained to use the first edition Family Star, scored a tested case study. Scoring was analysed using two metrics on the ten-point scale and the underlying five-point Journey of Change. The case study approach and metrics were evaluated for validity and accessibility.

This initial evaluation suggests this edition of the Family Star has good inter-rater reliability for the five-point Journey of Change, reaching the accepted threshold of 0.8 for the inter-rater reliability coefficient when three outlying workers are excluded. The reliability for the full ten point scale was moderate.

The sample size of 24 raters is small, though sufficient for an initial test of the approach, which will now be applied to larger samples, using other versions of the Outcomes Star.

The findings indicate that it is important that service providers test worker understanding of the scales to ensure consistency of use. The second edition of the Family Star incorporates more precise definitions of the ten-point scales to help improve the reliability.

The case study method and metrics provide an accessible measure of reliability, both for Star development and to enable managers to assess the reliability of an organisation's client data for internal and external purposes.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

The success of implementing Deming's management method depends on the ability of managers to operationally define and measure Deming's 14 Points. Tamimi et al. developed a set of operational measures for these 14 Points. They tested the validity and reliability of their instrument using a sample of firms that were involved in implementing TQM practices from one to five years out from implementation. This paper aims to examine this issue.

In this study, which retested their measurement items, data were collected from over 100 manufacturing and service companies of all sizes across the USA and Canada. The data were analyzed using similar statistical analysis procedures and comparisons were made with the results of Tamimi et al.'s study.

The results replicated the study by Tamimi et al. and supported their operational definitions with two exceptions. The scales for “Eliminating slogans and targets”, and “Taking action to accomplish the transformation”, were not found to be reliable in either the original or the current study. These two scales need to be modified and new questions are suggested in the paper.

The response rate for this study was high. However, self‐selection to participate and self‐reported responses could lead to some bias in responses.

The resulting operational definitions should prove useful to organizations interested in adopting Deming's management method.

Many different scales have been used to measure customer satisfaction. These scales can be divided into three main groups, being those measuring performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction. Reports on the design and execution of a study of hotel guests in which they were asked to rate the key service attributes of their stay using all three of these measurement scales. Repurchase intention and word‐of‐mouth effects were also measured. Compares the scales on the basis of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, predictive validity, skewness, face validity and managerial value for directing a quality improvement programme. Shows the disconfirmation scale to be superior to both the performance and satisfaction scales on all these criteria except for predictive validity. In addition, the performance scale was generally better than the satisfaction scale on a number of these criteria.