# 1.8: Levels of Measurement

- Page ID
- 2068

Skills to Develop

- Define and distinguish among nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales
- Identify a scale type
- Discuss the type of scale used in psychological measurement
- Give examples of errors that can be made by failing to understand the proper use of measurement scales

## Types of Scales

Before we can conduct a statistical analysis, we need to measure our dependent variable. Exactly how the measurement is carried out depends on the type of variable involved in the analysis. Different types are measured differently. To measure the time taken to respond to a stimulus, you might use a stop watch. Stop watches are of no use, of course, when it comes to measuring someone's attitude towards a political candidate. A rating scale is more appropriate in this case (with labels like "very favorable," "somewhat favorable," etc.). For a dependent variable such as "favorite color," you can simply note the color-word (like "red") that the subject offers.

Although procedures for measurement differ in many ways, they can be classified using a few fundamental categories. In a given category, all of the procedures share some properties that are important for you to know about. The categories are called "scale types," or just "scales," and are described in this section.

## Nominal scales

When measuring using a nominal scale, one simply names or categorizes responses. Gender, handedness, favorite color, and religion are examples of variables measured on a nominal scale. The essential point about nominal scales is that they do not imply any ordering among the responses. For example, when classifying people according to their favorite color, there is no sense in which green is placed "ahead of" blue. Responses are merely categorized. Nominal scales embody the lowest level of measurement.

## Ordinal scales

A researcher wishing to measure consumers' satisfaction with their microwave ovens might ask them to specify their feelings as either "very dissatisfied," "somewhat dissatisfied," "somewhat satisfied," or "very satisfied." The items in this scale are ordered, ranging from least to most satisfied. This is what distinguishes ordinal from nominal scales. Unlike nominal scales, ordinal scales allow comparisons of the degree to which two subjects possess the dependent variable. For example, our satisfaction ordering makes it meaningful to assert that one person is more satisfied than another with their microwave ovens. Such an assertion reflects the first person's use of a verbal label that comes later in the list than the label chosen by the second person.

On the other hand, ordinal scales fail to capture important information that will be present in the other scales we examine. In particular, the difference between two levels of an ordinal scale cannot be assumed to be the same as the difference between two other levels. In our satisfaction scale, for example, the difference between the responses "very dissatisfied" and "somewhat dissatisfied" is probably not equivalent to the difference between "somewhat dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." Nothing in our measurement procedure allows us to determine whether the two differences reflect the same difference in psychological satisfaction. Statisticians express this point by saying that the differences between adjacent scale values do not necessarily represent equal intervals on the underlying scale giving rise to the measurements. (In our case, the underlying scale is the true feeling of satisfaction, which we are trying to measure.)

What if the researcher had measured satisfaction by asking consumers to indicate their level of satisfaction by choosing a number from one to four? Would the difference between the responses of one and two necessarily reflect the same difference in satisfaction as the difference between the responses two and three? The answer is No. Changing the response format to numbers does not change the meaning of the scale. We still are in no position to assert that the mental step from \(1\) to \(2\) (for example) is the same as the mental step from \(3\) to \(4\).

## Interval scales

Interval scales are numerical scales in which intervals have the same interpretation throughout. As an example, consider the Fahrenheit scale of temperature. The difference between \(30\) degrees and \(40\) degrees represents the same temperature difference as the difference between \(80\) degrees and \(90\) degrees. This is because each \(10\)-degree interval has the same physical meaning (in terms of the kinetic energy of molecules).

Interval scales are not perfect, however. In particular, they do not have a true zero point even if one of the scaled values happens to carry the name "zero." The Fahrenheit scale illustrates the issue. Zero degrees Fahrenheit does not represent the complete absence of temperature (the absence of any molecular kinetic energy). In reality, the label "zero" is applied to its temperature for quite accidental reasons connected to the history of temperature measurement. Since an interval scale has no true zero point, it does not make sense to compute ratios of temperatures. For example, there is no sense in which the ratio of \(40\) to \(20\) degrees Fahrenheit is the same as the ratio of \(100\) to \(50\) degrees; no interesting physical property is preserved across the two ratios. After all, if the "zero" label were applied at the temperature that Fahrenheit happens to label as \(10\) degrees, the two ratios would instead be \(30\) to \(10\) and \(90\) to \(40\), no longer the same! For this reason, it does not make sense to say that \(80\) degrees is "twice as hot" as \(40\) degrees. Such a claim would depend on an arbitrary decision about where to "start" the temperature scale, namely, what temperature to call zero (whereas the claim is intended to make a more fundamental assertion about the underlying physical reality).

## Ratio scales

The ratio scale of measurement is the most informative scale. It is an interval scale with the additional property that its zero position indicates the absence of the quantity being measured. You can think of a ratio scale as the three earlier scales rolled up in one. Like a nominal scale, it provides a name or category for each object (the numbers serve as labels). Like an ordinal scale, the objects are ordered (in terms of the ordering of the numbers). Like an interval scale, the same difference at two places on the scale has the same meaning. And in addition, the same ratio at two places on the scale also carries the same meaning.

The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However, zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy of the other temperature.

Another example of a ratio scale is the amount of money you have in your pocket right now (\(25\) cents, \(55\) cents, etc.). Money is measured on a ratio scale because, in addition to having the properties of an interval scale, it has a true zero point: if you have zero money, this implies the absence of money. Since money has a true zero point, it makes sense to say that someone with \(50\) cents has twice as much money as someone with \(25\) cents (or that Bill Gates has a million times more money than you do).

## What level of measurement is used for psychological variables?

Rating scales are used frequently in psychological research. For example, experimental subjects may be asked to rate their level of pain, how much they like a consumer product, their attitudes about capital punishment, their confidence in an answer to a test question. Typically these ratings are made on a \(5\)-point or a \(7\)-point scale. These scales are ordinal scales since there is no assurance that a given difference represents the same thing across the range of the scale. For example, there is no way to be sure that a treatment that reduces pain from a rated pain level of \(3\) to a rated pain level of \(2\) represents the same level of relief as a treatment that reduces pain from a rated pain level of \(7\) to a rated pain level of \(6\).

In memory experiments, the dependent variable is often the number of items correctly recalled. What scale of measurement is this? You could reasonably argue that it is a ratio scale. First, there is a true zero point: some subjects may get no items correct at all. Moreover, a difference of one represents a difference of one item recalled across the entire scale. It is certainly valid to say that someone who recalled \(12\) items recalled twice as many items as someone who recalled only \(6\) items.

But number-of-items recalled is a more complicated case than it appears at first. Consider the following example in which subjects are asked to remember as many items as possible from a list of \(10\). Assume that (a) there are \(5\) easy items and \(5\) difficult items, (b) half of the subjects are able to recall all the easy items and different numbers of difficult items, while (c) the other half of the subjects are unable to recall any of the difficult items but they do remember different numbers of easy items. Some sample data are shown below.

*Table* \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Subject | Easy Items | Difficult Items | Score |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |

B | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |

C | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |

D | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |

Let's compare (1) the difference between Subject \(A's\) score of \(2\) and Subject \(B's\) score of \(3\) with (2) the difference between Subject \(C's\) score of \(7\) and Subject \(D's\) score of \(8\). The former difference is a difference of one easy item; the latter difference is a difference of one difficult item. Do these two differences necessarily signify the same difference in memory? We are inclined to respond "No" to this question since only a little more memory may be needed to retain the additional easy item whereas a lot more memory may be needed to retain the additional hard item. The general point is that it is often inappropriate to consider psychological measurement scales as either interval or ratio.

## Consequences of level of measurement

Why are we so interested in the type of scale that measures a dependent variable? The crux of the matter is the relationship between the variable's level of measurement and the statistics that can be meaningfully computed with that variable. For example, consider a hypothetical study in which \(5\) children are asked to choose their favorite color from blue, red, yellow, green, and purple. The researcher codes the results as follows:

*Table *\(\PageIndex{2}\)

Color | Code |
---|---|

Blue | 1 |

Red | 2 |

Yellow | 3 |

Green | 4 |

Purple | 5 |

This means that if a child said her favorite color was "Red," then the choice was coded as "\(2\)," if the child said her favorite color was "Purple," then the response was coded as \(5\), and so forth. Consider the following hypothetical data:

*Table *\(\PageIndex{3}\)

Subject | Color | Code |
---|---|---|

1 | Blue | 1 |

2 | Blue | 1 |

3 | Green | 4 |

4 | Green | 4 |

5 | Purple | 5 |

Each code is a number, so nothing prevents us from computing the average code assigned to the children. The average happens to be \(3\), but you can see that it would be senseless to conclude that the average favorite color is yellow (the color with a code of \(3\)). Such nonsense arises because favorite color is a nominal scale, and taking the average of its numerical labels is like counting the number of letters in the name of a snake to see how long the beast is.

Does it make sense to compute the mean of numbers measured on an ordinal scale? This is a difficult question, one that statisticians have debated for decades. You will be able to explore this issue yourself in a simulation shown in the next section and reach your own conclusion. The prevailing (but by no means unanimous) opinion of statisticians is that for almost all practical situations, the mean of an ordinally-measured variable is a meaningful statistic. However, as you will see in the simulation, there are extreme situations in which computing the mean of an ordinally-measured variable can be very misleading.

## Contributors

Online Statistics Education: A Multimedia Course of Study (http://onlinestatbook.com/). Project Leader: David M. Lane, Rice University.

- Dan Osherson and David M. Lane