評価尺度、評定尺度

WordNet

take by attacking with scaling ladders; "The troops scaled the walls of the fort"
a specialized leaf or bract that protects a bud or catkin (同)scale leaf
an ordered reference standard; "judging on a scale of 1 to 10" (同)scale of measurement, graduated table, ordered series
relative magnitude; "they entertained on a grand scale"
size or measure according to a scale; "This model must be scaled down"
the ratio between the size of something and a representation of it; "the scale of the map"; "the scale of the model"
a measuring instrument for weighing; shows amount of mass (同)weighing machine
a flattened rigid plate forming part of the body covering of many animals
an indicator having a graduated sequence of marks
(music) a series of notes differing in pitch according to a specific scheme (usually within an octave) (同)musical scale
a thin flake of dead epidermis shed from the surface of the skin (同)scurf, exfoliation
remove the scales from; "scale fish" (同)descale
reach the highest point of; "We scaled the Mont Blanc" (同)surmount
climb up by means of a ladder
measure by or as if by a scale; "This bike scales only 25 pounds"
measure with or as if with scales; "scale the gold"
pattern, make, regulate, set, measure, or estimate according to some rate or standard
the act of arranging in a graduated series (同)grading
act of measuring or arranging or adjusting according to a scale
ascent by or as if by a ladder
standing or position on a scale
(used of armor) having overlapping metal plates attached to a leather backing

PrepTutorEJDIC

《しばしば複数形で》『てんびん』,はかり / てんびんのさら / 《重量を表す副詞[句]を伴って》…の目方(体重)がある / …‘を'てんびんではかる
(蛇・魚類などの)うろこ / うろこ状の物;(ペンキ・さび・ふけなどの)爆片 / 〈魚など〉‘の'うろこを取る;…‘の'皮をはぐ / (…から)〈ペンキなどの薄泰〉‘を'そぎ取る《+『名』+『off』(『from』)+『名』》 / (…から)〈ペンキなどが〉かげ落ちる《+『off』(『from』)+『名』》
『段階』,等級,階級 / 『比率』,縮尺 / (物差しなどの)『目盛り』 / (目盛りの付いた)『物差し』;温度計,(各種の)スケール / 『規模』,スケール / 音階 / 記数法,…進法 / …‘を'よじ登る / (…に合わせて)…‘を'調整する《+『名』+『to』+『名』》 / …‘を'縮尺で製図(設計)する
〈C〉〈U〉（品質・技量などによる）格づけ,評価 / 〈C〉（個人・会社の経済的な）信用度 / 〈C〉(トン・馬力による)(船舶・車)の等級 / 〈C〉(テレビ・ラジオの)視聴率

Wikipedia preview

出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2014/05/14 17:07:12」(JST)

wiki en

An example of a common type of rating scale, the "rate this with 1 to 5 stars" model. This example is from Wikipedia's user-survey efforts.

Concerning rating scales as systems of educational marks, see articles about education in different countries (named "Education in ..."), for example, Education in Ukraine.

Concerning rating scales used in the practice of medicine, see articles about diagnoses, for example, Major depressive disorder.

A rating scale is a set of categories designed to elicit information about a quantitative or a qualitative attribute. In the social sciences, particularly psychology, common examples are the Likert scale and 1-10 rating scales in which a person selects the number which is considered to reflect the perceived quality of a product.

Background

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.

Types of rating scales

All rating scales can be classified into one of three classifications:-

Some data are measured at the ordinal level. Numbers indicate the relative position of items, but not the magnitude of difference. One example is a Likert scale:

Statement: e.g. "I could not live without my computer".

Response options:
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Agree
4. Strongly agree
Some data are measured at the interval level. Numbers indicate the magnitude of difference between items, but there is no absolute zero point. Examples are attitude scales and opinion scales.
Some data are measured at the ratio level. 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.

More than one rating scale is required to measure an attitude or perception due to the requirement for statistical comparisons between the categories in the polytomous Rasch model for ordered categories.^[1] In terms of Classical test theory, more than one question is required to obtain an index of internal reliability such as Cronbach's alpha,^[2] which is a basic criterion for assessing the effectiveness of a rating scale and, more generally, a psychometric instrument.

Rating scales used online

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 IMDb, Epinions.com, Yahoo! Movies, Amazon.com, BoardGameGeek and TV.com which use a rating scale from 0 to 100 in order to obtain "personalised film recommendations".

In almost all cases, online rating scales only allow one rating per user per product, though there are exceptions such as Ratings.net, 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 Yahoo! Movies, 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 IMDb's online rating facility.

Validity

With each user rating a product only once, for example in a category from 1 to 10, there is no means for evaluating internal reliability using an index such as Cronbach's alpha. It is therefore impossible to evaluate the validity 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 procedures." A measurement procedure is valid to the degree that if measures what it proposes to measure"

Another fundamental issue is that online ratings usually involve convenience sampling much like television polls, i.e. they represent only the opinions of those inclined to submit ratings.

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 validity.

Sampling

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 audience—90% of them are devotees of this genre, and only 10% are people with a general interest in movies. Assume the 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).

Qualitative description

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 likely to mean the same thing to different people. This applies to all categories, not just the extreme points.

The above issues are compounded, when aggregated statistics such as averages are used for lists and rankings of products. User ratings are at best ordinal 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 kinds of rating scales commonly used online are as follow:

Averages should not be calculated for data of the kind collected.
It is usually impossible to evaluate the reliability or validity of user ratings.
Products are not compared with respect to explicit, let alone common^{[clarification needed]}, criteria.
Only users inclined to submit a rating for a product do so.
Data are not usually published in a form that permits evaluation of the product ratings.

More developed methodologies include Choice Modelling or Maximum Difference methods, the latter being related to the Rasch model due to the connection between Thurstone's law of comparative judgement^{[clarification needed]} and the Rasch model.

References

^ Andrich, D. (1978). "A rating formulation for ordered response categories". Psychometrika, 43, 357-74.
^ Cronbach, L. J. (1951). "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests". Psychometrika, 16, 297-333.

External links

How to apply Rasch analysis

UpToDate Contents

全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.

1. 不安障害およびうつ病の併存：疫学、臨床症状、および診断 comorbid anxiety and depression epidemiology clinical manifestations and diagnosis
2. 緩和ケアにおける症状の評価へのアプローチ approach to symptom assessment in palliative care
3. うつ病における症状測定および治療のための尺度の使用（測定に基づくケア） using scales to monitor symptoms and treat depression measurement based care
4. 心臓リハビリテーションプログラム cardiac rehabilitation programs
5. プライマリケアにおける発達および行動のスクリーニング検査 developmental and behavioral screening tests in primary care

English Journal

A Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) versus escitalopram in major depressive disorder.

Mischoulon D, Price LH, Carpenter LL, Tyrka AR, Papakostas GI, Baer L, Dording CM, Clain AJ, Durham K, Walker R, Ludington E, Fava M.Author information 1 Bowdoin Sq, 6th Floor, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114 dmischoulon@partners.org.AbstractOBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative antidepressant efficacy of S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAMe) and escitalopram in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
The Journal of clinical psychiatry.J Clin Psychiatry.2014 Dec 24. [Epub ahead of print]
OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative antidepressant efficacy of S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAMe) and escitalopram in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.METHOD: One hundred eighty-nine outpatients (49.7% female, mean [SD] age = 45 [15] years) with DSM-IV-diagnosed major depr
PMID 24500245

Confirmed efficacy of topical nifedipine in the treatment of facial wrinkles.

Calabrò G, De Vita V, Patalano A, Mazzella C, Lo Conte V, Antropoli C.Author information Department of Dermatology, University of Naples Federico II , Naples , Italy.AbstractINTRODUCTION: Over the past two decades, there has been increasing demand for aesthetic procedures to reverse the effects of aging, particularly in the facial area. Recently, topical nifedipine has been proposed for its anti-wrinkle efficacy.
The Journal of dermatological treatment.J Dermatolog Treat.2014 Aug;25(4):319-25. doi: 10.3109/09546634.2013.802759. Epub 2013 Jun 2.
INTRODUCTION: Over the past two decades, there has been increasing demand for aesthetic procedures to reverse the effects of aging, particularly in the facial area. Recently, topical nifedipine has been proposed for its anti-wrinkle efficacy.OBJECTIVE: To confirm the anti-wrinkle efficacy of a 0.5%
PMID 23688162

Efficacy and safety of incobotulinum toxin A in periocular rhytides and masseteric hypertrophy: side-by-side comparison with onabotulinum toxin A.

Lee JH, Park JH, Lee SK, Han KH, Kim SD, Yoon CS, Park JY, Lee JH, Yang JM, Lee JH.Author information Department of Dermatology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea.AbstractBACKGROUND: Incobotulinum is a newly developed botulinum toxin A in which the complexing proteins had been removed.
The Journal of dermatological treatment.J Dermatolog Treat.2014 Aug;25(4):326-30. doi: 10.3109/09546634.2013.769041. Epub 2013 Jun 2.
BACKGROUND: Incobotulinum is a newly developed botulinum toxin A in which the complexing proteins had been removed.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of incobotulinum with onabotulinum in treating periocular rhytides and masseteric hypertrophy.METHODS: A randomized, double-bli
PMID 23356833

Japanese Journal

外来化学療法を受けているがん患者の気がかりとそのサポート

楠葉洋子,橋爪可織,中根佳純,宮原千穂,土屋暁美,芦澤和人,福島卓也,澤井照光,浦田秀子
保健学研究 24(1), 19-25, 2012-03
… Cancer-chemotherapy Concerns Rating Scale（CCRS）を用いて外来化学療法を受けているがん患者62名の気がかりとそれをどの程度他者に話しているかについて調査した．気がかりがある人の割合は『病気の進行』に関する項目が最も高く，次いで『社会・経済の見通し』『自己存在』『日常生活の再構成』の順であった．気がかりを話す相手は家族や友人が多かった．「化学療法を継続していく中で自分の役割を …
NAID 120003874161

透析患者の水分処置後のリドカインテープ貼用による穿刺時疼痛の変化

犀川由紀子,松原美紀,神谷千鶴,江川隆子
関西看護医療大学紀要 4(1), 6-13, 2012-03
… 【目的】本研究は、透析患者の穿刺部位に水分処置を実施した上でリドカインテープを貼用し、穿刺時痛をNumerical Rating Scale(NRS)にて測定し、水分処置のケアに役立つ基礎資料を得た。 …
NAID 110008907138

Related Pictures

★リンクテーブル★

リンク元	「評価尺度」「評定尺度」
拡張検索	「Hamilton rating scale for depression」「brief psychiatric rating scale」
関連記事	「scale」「scaling」

「評価尺度」

　　[★]

英: rating scale
関: 評定尺度

「評定尺度」

　　[★]

英: rating scale
関: 評価尺度

「Hamilton rating scale for depression」

　　[★] ハミルトンうつ病評価尺度

「brief psychiatric rating scale」

　　[★]

簡易精神症状評価尺度

「scale」

　　[★]

n.

1. (魚・は虫類の)うろこ。(チョウ・ガの)鱗粉。(皮膚の)鱗屑。薄片。(植物)芽鱗、鱗片。(動物)カイガラムシ。(金属を熱したときにできる)薄い酸化膜、スケール。(ボイラーややかんの内側にできる)湯垢。歯石。
2. 目盛り、定規、物差し、尺度、基準。(地図などの)縮尺比、縮尺目盛り。階級、等級。規模、スケール
3. はかり、てんびん

vt.
vi.

「scaling」

　　[★]

n.

スケーリング

縮尺や変換係数を定めること、歯石とプラークを除去すること

[1] Andrich, D. (1978). "A rating formulation for ordered response categories". Psychometrika, 43, 357-74.

[2] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests". Psychometrika, 16, 297-333.

匿名

検索

案内

案内

rating scale