Attributes and General Criterion for validity of a Scale

Needs of the social scale.

Various kind of scales is used to measures the intensities of different factors. If the factor is physical such as temperature, weight etc, the outcomes of measurement results into quantitative figure namely numerical figures. But if the factors are related to mental state, behaviour, attitudes of human beings and the concept of individuals and cannot be measured numerically and the results will be non-quantitative forms.

But often these non-quantitative results are to be quantified to make the data more pinpointed and valid. For this purpose, sociologist and psychologist use various social scale/tools, some developed by themselves and some developed by others.

Some of the scales commonly used in social researchers are.

1. The point scale.
2. Borgodous scale.

Attributes.

Attributes are defined as that factor whose intensity cannot be measured but the observations made on them may result in outcomes that can be distinguished and counted are called attributes.

Example.

Factor Religion outcomes-

Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians etc.

Dichotomous variable.

If there are only two mutually outcomes of attributes, it is called dichotomous variable. These are measured by using the nominal scale.

Example.

Factor Gender-Outcomes-Male or Female.

Quality- Good or bad.

Qualitative variable.

Through the intensity of factors related to mental state, behaviours attitudes of human beings and the concept of individuals, cannot be measured numerically, they may not be ordered/ranked as high, very high, extremely high etc by using the ordinal scale. Such factors are called quantitative variable. Ranks in services, posts and competition and evaluations etc fall in this type.

For practical purpose as factors measured either in nominal scale or in ordinal scale are called qualitative variable.

Quantitative variable.

The intensities of factors such as temperature, weight, height can be measured directly by using physical scales/ instruments, with results in numerical figures. Also, some factors such as age through cannot be measured by using instruments may be measured numerically by using the time duration. For example: age, weight, height ,length,temperature,quality etc.

Factors, whose measurement results into outcomes are called quantitative variable. Most of the quantitative variable are measured in ratio scale and a few of them such as temperature is measured in interval scale.

General criteria used for a validity of a scale.

The general character used for the validity of scale are as follows.

1. Logical validities.
2. Known opinion.
3. Jury group.
4. Independent variable.

Logical validities.

According to this criterion, logics and common sense plays the important role to become a scale valid. A scale is said to be valid if it stands to one’s common sense. Due to the influence of one’s subjective view and biases this method may not be reliable.

Known opinion.

This criterion is superior to logical validation instead of the common sense of one person, judgement of a group is used. But still, it cannot be said completely free from biases. A large number of people are not necessarily free of biases in their opinions.

Jury groups.

This method is very much similar to logical validity method, therefore has more or less the same weakness as in the case of logical method. Only the difference, in this case, is that we have to reply upon our knowledge of facts rather than on logical resonating.

In this criteria, a scale is subjected to persons who are known to hold a particular. Opinion or belong to a particular category and the results are then compared with the known facts.

For example, If attitudes of persons towards family planning are to be measured, we deliberated select persons who have either known opponents of the program or supporters of the program and note the result thus secured. If they tally, with the known results, the scale administrated is considered as valid.

Independent criteria.

While administrating a scale on the various variable, the scale is said to be valid when or most of the tests show the same result. For example, The social status as economic status, education level and their sociability etc. If the scores obtained are similar, then the scale is said to valid one.

Difficulties in scaling.

The following difficulties are involved in the preparation of a scale.

1. Due to the complex and abstract nature of the social phenomenon. It cannot easily be measured quantitatively and ultimately the main problem comes in defining a phenomenon. For example, most of us use the term ‘Middle-class persons’ in every day, we may have a rough idea of what sense it covers in every day, we may have a rough idea of what sense it covers, but it cannot be defined concretely.
2. There are no universally accepted measure of values. One can define a social status in several ways. However, none of them is considered standard one.
3. It is very difficult to infer about deeds from the attitudes of the scale because attitudes and deeds or persons often differ lots of social costumes, an economic difference exists among the human population. Thus a scale prepared for a particular group is not often suitable for another.
4. The score of the scale cannot be tested as they do not pertain to any tangible things because most of the social phenomenon is intangible in nature. This intangibility causes difficulty in measuring the validity of the scale.
5. Since most of the social phenomenon could not be put to laboratory test nor open to our observation because of its intangible nature and privacy observer by human beings, the social events have to be watched as when they take place. Under their conditions, it is not possible to measure the magnitude of various variables influencing the social phenomenon.
6. The scaling becomes only variables influencing the social phenomenon.

Reference.

Kerlinger, F.N. Foundation of Behavioural Research. New Delhi: Surjeet Publication, 2000.

Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology. India: Vishwa Prakashan, 1990.

Singh, M.L. and J.M Singh. Understanding Research Methodology. 1998.

Singh, Mrigendra Lal. Understanding Research Methodology. Nepal: National Book centre, 2013.