Diefenbach M A, Weinstein N D, O'Reilly J
Department of Psychology, Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901.
Health Educ Res. 1993 Jun;8(2):181-92. doi: 10.1093/her/8.2.181.
Two studies examined the effectiveness of a variety of commonly used likelihood scales (dichotomous scale, five-point verbally-labeled scale, odds scale, percentage scale, etc.) for assessing perceptions of personal susceptibility to health and safety risks. Two direct evaluation criteria (subjects' ratings of how easy it was to use a scale and of how well the scale reflected their feelings) and three additional measures of validity and reliability (the agreement of scale-derived ranks with a direct ranking, the magnitude of correlations between risk perceptions and appropriate risk factors, and the stability of scores over time) were used to compare the scales. Increasing the number of scale categories did not necessarily improve performance. In fact, a scale with seven verbally-labeled categories performed as well as or better than other scales on all evaluation criteria. These data may help health education researchers in selecting scales to measure perceptions of susceptibility to harm.
两项研究考察了多种常用的可能性量表（二分制量表、五点文字标注量表、几率量表、百分比量表等）在评估个人对健康和安全风险易感性认知方面的有效性。使用了两项直接评估标准（受试者对量表使用难易程度以及量表反映其感受程度的评分）以及另外三项效度和信度测量指标（量表得出的排名与直接排名的一致性、风险认知与适当风险因素之间的相关程度以及分数随时间的稳定性）来比较这些量表。增加量表类别数量并不一定会提高性能。事实上，一个有七个文字标注类别的量表在所有评估标准上的表现与其他量表相当或更好。这些数据可能有助于健康教育研究人员选择量表来测量对伤害易感性的认知。
