```Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 15:43:39 +0100 Reply-To: John Whittington Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" From: John Whittington Subject: Re: OT: Aggregate preference measurement, disagreement index Comments: To: kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 17:50 24/04/01 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote (in part): >....This works relatively well, but it fails to take into account >variance in votes indicating possible differences of opinion, >controversiality, or other disagreement among moderators. Assuming six >moderations, all other things equal, I'd like to see: >(1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5) rated higher than (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3), though they >both have the same mean. Karsten, I haven't noticed any replies to this post of yours, so just a few thoughts..... The problem there is that you would have to create a whole set of (essentially arbitrary) rules as regards what you wanted to be rated higher than what. The example you give is straightforward enough - but where, for example, would you want, say, (2,2,2,4,4,4) to stand in relation to, say, (1,1,4,4,4,4)? etc. etc. etc. You could, I suppose, just generate arbitrary derived indices which had roughly the effect you wanted. For example, if you divided your mean by (range +1) or (SD+1) [the +1 to avoid division by zero problems], you'd get a figure which would be largest when there was least variability of the scores - but whether third parties would consider such a manipulated score as having any meaning is a different matter. >I'd also like to indicate a stronger sense of certainty for more ratings >than fewer. (5) is less significant than (5, 5, 5, 5, 5), and may be >less significant than (5, 5, 5, 5, 4). Again, you would have to (arbitrarily) decide upon your rules. I suppose the most dramatic extreme would be to use the sum of all available scores, rather than the mean - which would give figures of 5, 25 and 24 for your three examples, respectively. If you also divided by (range+1), as per above, they would then become 5, 25 and 12 respectively - but that is probably too 'violent' an adjustment for your needs - and, again, the figures might well not be considered meaniful by third parties. Kind Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225 Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893 Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: John.W@mediscience.co.uk Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK mediscience@compuserve.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- ```

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page