Comparison Between Discrete and Analog Semantic Differential Scales Accuracies in Kansei Engineering (Case Study: Reception Chairs)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Human Development Studies, Max Planck Institute, Berlin, Germany.

2 Industrial Design Department, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Cognitive Psychology and Rehabilitation, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

This study aims to compare the distribution of semantic differential scale results, both discrete and analog, used in Kansei Engineering studies. Previous research shows that observers have a tendency to choose the extreme ends of Likert or discrete semantic differential rating scales. Conventionally, the discrete semantic differential rating scale is used in Kansei Engineering and the above-mentioned tendency may affect the result of studies. Non-normality of the distribution can be an indicator of the presence of error and bias in that method and mitigate its validity. The data was collected through a Kansei Engineering process using a real-world case study of reception chairs. The distribution of the results for both rating scales can be considered normal, hence, the previous researches’ achievements are not valid in the field of Kansei Engineering. This may be due to the ability to compare each answer with others, even implicitly, which is possible in the Kansei form. The results show that the difference between the average scores of the two rating scales is significant (t-test, p < 0.05), warranting further investigation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ayas, E. (2011). Engineering quality feelings. Doctoral Thesis. KTH Engineering Science. Stockholm, Sweden.
Betella, A., & Verschure, P. F. M. J. (2016). The affective slider: A digital Self-Assessment scale for the measurement of human emotions. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148037
Dourado, G. B., Volpato, G. H., De Almeida-Pedrin, R. R., Oltramari, P. V. P., Fernandes, T. M. F., & De Castro Ferreira Conti, A. C. (2021). Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 160(6), p. 844–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.024
Fernandes, R., & Yamanaka, T. (2020). Affective Impressions Scale (AIS): The development of a visual scale to measure affective synchrony among children. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on 
Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research. KEER 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1256. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7801-4_5
Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), p. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.1.45
Magdolen, M., Von Behren, S., Vallée, J., Chlond, B., & Vortisch, P. (2024). Response bias in Likert-style psychological items – an example from a large-scale travel survey in China. Transportation Research Procedia, 76, p. 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.12.060
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), p. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(94)00052-5
Nagamachi, M. (1999). Kansei Engineering and its applications in automotive design. SAE Technical Papers on CD-ROM/SAE Technical Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-1265
Nagamachi, M. (2010). Kansei/Affective Engineering (Systems Innovation Book Series) [1st ed.]. CRC Press.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning (No. 47). University of Illinois press.
Posner, E. A., & Weyl, G. E. (2018). Radical markets: Uprooting capitalism and democracy for a just society. Princeton University Press.
Shutte, S., & Eklund, J. (2010). Ratingscales in Kansei Engineering: Modification for a European context. International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research 2010.
Hsu, C., Fann, S., & Chuang, M. (2017). Relationship between eye fixation patterns and Kansei evaluation of 3D chair forms. Displays, 50, p. 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2017.09.002
Jacoby, J., & Matel, M. S. (1971). Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, p. 495–500.
Jebb, A. T., Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2021). A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995–2019. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 637547.
Kreitchmann R. S., Abad F. J., Ponsoda V., Nieto M. D., & Morillo, D. (2019). Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items. Front. Psycho, 10, 2309. https://10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
Kusmaryono, I., Wijayanti, D., & Maharani, H. R. (2022). Number of response options, reliability, validity, and potential bias in the use of the Likert scale education and social science research: A literature review. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 8(4), p. 625-637. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
Tama, I. P., Azlia, W., & Hardiningtyas, D. (2015). Development of customer-oriented product design using Kansei Engineering and Kano model: Case study of ceramic souvenir. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, p. 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.048
Westland, J. C. (2022). Information loss and bias in Likert survey responses. PLOS ONE, 17(7), e0271949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271949
Zhou, C., Jiang, L., & Kaner, J. (2023). Study on imagery modeling of electric recliner chair: Based on combined GRA and Kansei Engineering. Applied Sciences, 13(24), 13345. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132413345
 
Journal of Design Thinking
Volume 5, Issue 1
June 2024
Pages 47-56

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics