臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：同質團體與異質團體在選擇量表量尺語詞上的比較研究
書刊名：中華心理學刊
作者：姚開屏 引用關係／林茂榮 引用關係／王榮德
作者(外文)：Yao, Grace Kai-ping／Lin, Mau Roung／Wang Jung-der
出版日期：2000
卷期：42:2
頁次：頁141-153
主題關鍵詞：量尺語詞；同質團體；異質團體；生活品質；世界衛生組織；Scale descriptors；Homogeneous group；Heterogeneous group；Quality of life；World health organization
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:55
  • 點閱點閱:46
為了要瞭解不同性質的團體在量表量尺語詞方面選擇的差異，本研究以156位來自全省各大醫院的醫療使用者(稱為異質團體)及149位來自臺灣大學修習普通心理學的各學院學生(稱為同質團體)為受訪對象。每位受訪者需對四大類型共80個不同的量尺語詞，包括17個「能力」語詞、22個「頻率」語詞、23個「強度」語詞、及18個「評估」語詞，在一條10分的線段上，參考由專家先前決定的兩個端點用詞後，標出該詞的相對程度。研究者有參考先前決定的兩個端點用詞後，標出該詞的相對程度。研究者在參考各類型量尺語詞的平均數、標準差、中數等標準後，對各類型量尺選出三個中間的語 詞，以對各類型語詞建立五點量尺。比較兩個不同團體的結果發現，不同團體在量表量尺語詞方面的解釋的確有差異，除了在選擇語詞方面不同外，同質團體的看法較一致且較開放性，另外，同質團體對模糊或不確定的語詞看法較不一致，而異質團體則對極端語詞的看法較不一致。研究還發現相同副詞配合不同類別語詞的平均數不相同，除此之外，除了某些比較模糊的副詞外，量尺語詞一般還算具有對稱性。本園究結果可提供社會及行為科學研究者在使用量表為研究工具時的參考。
The purpose of this study is to compare the differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous groups on scale descriptor selection. Four types of responses scales including 80 different descriptors were used in a questionnaire. One hundred and fifty-six health service users (heterogeneous group) and 149 students of National Taiwan University (homogeneous group) were asked to place each of the 80 descriptors on a 10 centimeter line according to where they think each descriptor lies in relation to the two pre-specified anchors. Results showed that different groups have different judgments on scale descriptor selection. The subjects of homogeneous group had more consistent and open views on scale descriptor selection. However, they had more inconsistent opinions on more vague and uncertain descriptors, while the subjects of heterogeneous group had more inconsistent opinions on more extreme descriptors. Moreover, the averages for the same adverb but with different scale descriptors were different. The results are useful for the social and behavioral science researchers who use response scales as instruments in their studies.
期刊論文
1.Masters, G. N.(1982)。A Rasch model for partical credit scoring。Psychometrika，47，149-174。  new window
2.林茂榮、姚開屏、黃景祥、王榮德(19990800)。臺灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷量尺語詞的選擇。中華公共衛生雜誌，18(4)，262-270。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Hui, C. H.、Triandis, H. C.(1985)。Measurement in Cross-cultural Psychology: A Review and Comparison of Strategies。Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology，16(2)，131-152。  new window
4.Matell, M. S.、Jacoby, J.(1971)。Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and Validity。Educational and Psychological Measurement，31(3)，657-674。  new window
5.翁儷禎(19980600)。評定量表標示語之心理量尺值研究：頻率及同意度詞。中華心理學刊，40(1)，73-86。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.The WHOQOL group(1995)。The world health organization quality of fife assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the world health organization。Social Science Medicine，41(10)，1403-1409。  new window
7.World Health Organization(1994)。Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and Current Status。International Journal of Mental Health，23(3)，24-56。  new window
8.楊中芳、趙志裕(19871200)。中國受測者所面臨的矛盾困境：對過份依賴西方評定量表的反省。中華心理學刊，29(2)，113-132。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.胡志偉、彭昭英、沈永正、楊金龍(19890600)。常用中文機率詞所代表的意義。中華心理學刊，31(1)，1-6。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.Yao, G.、Böckenholt, U.(1999)。Bayesian Estimation of Thurstonian Ranking Models Based on the Gibbs Sampler。British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology，52，79-92。  new window
11.柯永河(1994)。同一量尺，類似受試，不同作答方式會產生甚麼測驗結果？。測驗年刊，41，55-72。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.Bendig, A. W.(1954)。Reliability and the number of rating scales。Journal of Applied Psychology，38，38-40。  new window
13.Bendig, A. W.(1955)。Rater reliability and the heterogeneity of the scale anchors。Journal of Applied Psychology，39，37-39。  new window
14.French-Lazovik, G.、Gibson, C. L.(1984)。Effects of verbally labeled anchor points on the distributional parameters of rating measures。Applied Psychological Measurement，8，49-57。  new window
15.Hancock, G. R.、Klockars, A. J.(1991)。The effect of scale manipulations on validity: Targetting frequency rating scales for anticipated performance levels。Applied Ergonomics，22，147-154。  new window
16.Klockars, A. J.、Yamagishi, M.(1988)。The influence of labels and positions in rating scales。Journal of Educational Measurement，25(2)，85-96。  new window
17.Low, G.、Tasker, I.、Hong, L.(1991)。The wording of bipolar attitude scales in Chinese。Educational Research，33(2)，141-150。  new window
18.Newstead, S. E.、Arnold, J.(1989)。The effect of response format on ratings of teaching。Educational and Psychological Measurement，49(1)，33-43。  new window
19.Spector, P. E.(1976)。Choosing response categories for summated rating scales。Journal of Applied Psychology，61(3)，374-375。  new window
20.Wildt, A. R.、Mazis, M. B.(1978)。Determinants of scale response: Label versus position。Journal of Marketing Research，15，261-267。  new window
21.Brady, H. E.(1989)。Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable Data。Psychometrika，54，181-202。  new window
22.Burnaska, R. F.、Hollmann, T. D.(1974)。An empirical comparison of the relative effects of rater response biases on three rating scale formats。Journal of Applied Psychology，59，307-312。  new window
23.Chan, J. C.(1991)。Response-order effects in Likert-type scales。Educational and Psychological Measurement，51，531-540。  new window
24.Duncan, P.(1989)。Use of extreme rating categories in ratings of child behavior。Child Study Journal，19，51-64。  new window
25.Forgas, Joseph P.、Kagan, C.、Frey, D.(1977)。The cognitive representation of political personalities: A cross-cultural comparison。International Journal of Psychology，12，19-30。  new window
26.Greenleaf, E. A.(1992)。Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in same response styles。Journal Marketing Research，29，176-188。  new window
27.Raybeck, D.、Hermann, D. J.(1981)。Similarity and differences in meaning in six cultures。Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology，12，194-206。  new window
28.Krosnick, J. A.、Alwin, D. F.(1988)。A test of the form-resistant correlation hypothesis: Ratings, rankings and the measurement of values。Public Opinion Quarterly，52，526-538。  new window
29.Graham, W. K.、Komorita, S. S.(1965)。Number of scale points and the reliability of scales。Educational and Psychological Measurement，15，987-995。  new window
30.Lam, T. C.、Klockars, A. J.(1982)。Anchors point effects on the equivalence of questionnaire items。Journal of Educational Measurement，19，317-322。  new window
31.Rudmin, F. W.(1994)。Cross-cultural psycholinguistic field research: Verbs of ownership and possession。Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology，25，114-132。  new window
32.Nisbett, R. E.、Peng, K.、Wong, N. Y. C.(1997)。Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions。Psychological Methods，2，329-344。  new window
33.Saal, F. E.、Landy, F. J.(1977)。The mixed standard rating scale: An evaluation。Organizational Behavior and Human Performance，18，19-35。  new window
34.Skevington, S. M.、Tucker, C.(1999)。Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: Data from the development of the UK WHOQOL。British Journal of Medical Psychology，72，51-61。  new window
35.Taylor, D. M.、Simard, L. M.、Aboud, F. E.(1972)。Ethnic identification in Canada: A cross-cultural investigation。Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science，4，13-20。  new window
36.Tzeng, O. C.、Everett, A. V.(1985)。A cross-cultural perspective of self-related conceptions in adolescence。International Journal of Psychology，20，329-348。  new window
37.Tzeng, O. C.、Osgood, C. E.、May, W. H.(1976)。Idealized cultural differences in kinship conceptions。International Journal of Psycholinguistics，55，1-77。  new window
38.Velden, M.、Clark, C.(1979)。Reduction of Rating Scale Data by Means of Signal Detection Theory。Perception & Psychophysics，25，517-518。  new window
39.Watson, D. C.、Willosn, L. R.、Sinha, B. K.(1998)。Assessing the dimensional structure of coping: A cross-cultural comparison。International Journal of Stress Management，5，77-81。  new window
會議論文
1.鄭中平、翁儷禎(1995)。李克氏量尺選項順序對問卷結果的影響。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.翁儷禎(1996)。頻率及同意度副詞的心理量尺值研究。沒有紀錄。new window  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.黃恆獎(1986)。問卷調查量度方法之研究--以Likert量表為例(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Rasch, G.(1960)。Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests。Copenhagen：The Danish Institute of Educational Research。  new window
2.Wright, B. D.、Masters, G. N.(1982)。Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement。Chicago：MESA Press。  new window
3.Wright, B. D.、Stone, M. H.(1979)。Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement。Chicago, IL：Mesa Press。  new window
4.Bullinger, M.(1994)。Ensuring international equivalence of quality of life measures: Problems and approaches to solutions。Quality of life assessment: International perspectives。New York, NY。  new window
5.Szabo, S.(1996)。The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Assessment Instrument。Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials。Philadelphia, PA。  new window
6.World Health Organization(1993)。WHOQOL study protocol。WHOQOL study protocol。Geneva, Switzerland。  new window
其他
1.(1997)。中華民國臺閩地區人口統計，民國八十五年，臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Sartorius, N.、Kuyken, W.(1994)。Translation of health status instruments。Quality of life assessment: International perspectives。Spring-Verlag。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1265（臺灣：1234，外國：31） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1669892 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67479267
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上