| Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende Überarbeitung | Letzte ÜberarbeitungBeide Seiten der Revision |
| lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d [21.03.2019 18:32] – Julia Sageder | lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d [21.03.2019 18:38] – Bild vergrößert Julia Sageder |
|---|
| members_ : Julia Sageder, Ariane Demleitner, Oliver Irlbacher | members_ : Julia Sageder, Ariane Demleitner, Oliver Irlbacher |
| keywords_ : ranking, Condorcet, Schulze method, Likert, evaluation, Computational Social Choice, COMSOC, comparison, scales, voting, multiple ranking, versus ranking, pairwise ranking | keywords_ : ranking, Condorcet, Schulze method, Likert, evaluation, Computational Social Choice, COMSOC, comparison, scales, voting, multiple ranking, versus ranking, pairwise ranking |
| photo_img : :lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:ranking_voting_group_D.png?nolink&150 | Ranking candidates | photo_img : :lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:ranking_voting_group_D.png?nolink&250 | Ranking candidates |
| shortdescription : Likert-type scales are considered as a popular tool in questionnaires and evaluations to gather reviews and opinions from participants taking part in the evaluation process. The need for new Likert-type scale alternatives has arisen through a set of scientifically ambiguous guidelines for the creation of Likert-type scales on the one hand, and through various criticisms of incorrect scientific analysis of Likert-type scales on the other. Within the evaluation process, several objects of investigation can be ranked and thus can be rated over the assigned rank. Now, do ranking methods achieve the same results/winners as Likert-type scales? A preliminary (18 German and Colombian participants) and a main study (24 participants) were conducted to investigate this topic. The results of the explorative pre-study lead us to the design of the ranking method for the main-study. Our findings of the main-study show that multiple ranking scales (evaluated with the Schulze method) achieve the same results when determining a ranking winner, as Likert-type scales. For this reason, it can be assumed that multiple ranking scales are an alternative to the commonly used Likert-type scales. Due to a mistake in our study design, we cannot proof that participants are faster with multiple ranking scales compared to Likert-type scales, further studies have to answer this question. | shortdescription : Likert-type scales are considered as a popular tool in questionnaires and evaluations to gather reviews and opinions from participants taking part in the evaluation process. The need for new Likert-type scale alternatives has arisen through a set of scientifically ambiguous guidelines for the creation of Likert-type scales on the one hand, and through various criticisms of incorrect scientific analysis of Likert-type scales on the other. Within the evaluation process, several objects of investigation can be ranked and thus can be rated over the assigned rank. Now, do ranking methods achieve the same results/winners as Likert-type scales? A preliminary (18 German and Colombian participants) and a main study (24 participants) were conducted to investigate this topic. The results of the explorative pre-study lead us to the design of the ranking method for the main-study. Our findings of the main-study show that multiple ranking scales (evaluated with the Schulze method) achieve the same results when determining a ranking winner, as Likert-type scales. For this reason, it can be assumed that multiple ranking scales are an alternative to the commonly used Likert-type scales. Due to a mistake in our study design, we cannot proof that participants are faster with multiple ranking scales compared to Likert-type scales, further studies have to answer this question. |
| |