↓ Skip to main content

Scoring best-worst data in unbalanced many-item designs, with applications to crowdsourcing semantic judgments

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Scoring best-worst data in unbalanced many-item designs, with applications to crowdsourcing semantic judgments
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, May 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0898-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoff Hollis

Abstract

Best-worst scaling is a judgment format in which participants are presented with a set of items and have to choose the superior and inferior items in the set. Best-worst scaling generates a large quantity of information per judgment because each judgment allows for inferences about the rank value of all unjudged items. This property of best-worst scaling makes it a promising judgment format for research in psychology and natural language processing concerned with estimating the semantic properties of tens of thousands of words. A variety of different scoring algorithms have been devised in the previous literature on best-worst scaling. However, due to problems of computational efficiency, these scoring algorithms cannot be applied efficiently to cases in which thousands of items need to be scored. New algorithms are presented here for converting responses from best-worst scaling into item scores for thousands of items (many-item scoring problems). These scoring algorithms are validated through simulation and empirical experiments, and considerations related to noise, the underlying distribution of true values, and trial design are identified that can affect the relative quality of the derived item scores. The newly introduced scoring algorithms consistently outperformed scoring algorithms used in the previous literature on scoring many-item best-worst data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 32%
Linguistics 2 11%
Computer Science 2 11%
Mathematics 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#2,100
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,490
of 327,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#35
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.