Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste

By L. Bartoshuk, V. Duffy, K. Fast, B. Green, J. Prutkin, D. J. Snyder. 2003

271 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Report The Chemical Interactions Underlying Tomato Flavor Preferences (2012, unknown): “Panelists rated overall liking of each variety as well as the overall tomato flavor intensity, sweetness, and sourness on sensory and hedonic versions of the general labeled magnitude scale (gLMS) [7, 8].”
A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale (2010, unknown): “This assumption was later challenged (Bartoshuk et al., 2002).”
The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: Evidence from a cross-modality matching method (2004, methodology): “The classical solution to this measurement problem is to use one of S.S. Stevens s direct-scaling methods (Bartoshuk et al., 2003).”
Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory (2011, methodology): “In later years, Bartoshuk and colleagues (Bartoshuk, 2000; Bartoshuk et al., 2002; Bartoshuk, Duffy, Green et al., 2004) argued that the top of the LMS (i.”