Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Budescu, D. V.
Right arrow Articles by Rapoport, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of the Eigenvalue Method and The Geometric Mean Procedure for Ratio Scaling

David V. Budescu

University of Haifa

Rami Zwick

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Amnon Rapoport

University of Haifa

This article evaluates and compares the performance of two ratio scaling methods, the eigenvalue method proposed by Saaty (1977, 1980) and the geometric mean procedure advocated by Williams and Crawford (1980), given random data. The two methods were ex amined in a series of monte carlo simulations for two response methods (direct estimation and constant sum) and various numbers of stimuli and response scales. The sampling distributions of the measures of consist ency of the two methods were tabulated, rules for de tecting and rejecting inconsistent respondents are out lined, and approximation formulas for other designs are derived. Overall, there was a high level of agree ment and correspondence between the results from the two scaling techniques even when the data were ran dom.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 10, No. 1, 69-78 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168601000106


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?