A comparison of ranking and rating procedures for value system measurement

Abstract

Abstract Compared the validity and reliability of 2 value measurement techniques. 296 Ss (161 females and 135 males) in introductory psychology filled out the 2 measurement techniques and an attitude survey. The Rokeach Value Survey instructed Ss to separately rank 2 sets of 18 values in order of importance. A rating version of the Value Survey instructed S s to rate the same 36 values from 1 to 99. 236 S returned 6 weeks later and again filled out both measurement techniques. Results of the multimethod factor analysis indicate very good convergent validity among the 4 measures of a given value (2 techniques × 2 sessions) and very good discriminant validity between measures of different values. Probably due to the ipsative nature of the ranking procedure, the test‐retest reliabilities were higher for the ranked measurements than for the rated measurements. The construct validity of both measurement techniques, as determined by multiple regression and analysis of variance, were similar. Despite criticisms of ranking procedures, both the ranked and the rated versions were of equal reliability and validity.