Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858063acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Effect of Visual Appearance on the Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales

Published: 07 May 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales (VASs) are input mechanisms which allow users to specify a value within a predefined range. At a minimum, sliders and VASs typically consist of a line with the extreme values labeled. Additional decorations such as labels and tick marks can be added to give information about the gradations along the scale and allow for more precise and repeatable selections. There is a rich history of research about the effect of labelling in discrete scales (i.e., Likert scales), however the effect of decorations on continuous scales has not been rigorously explored. In this paper we perform a 2,000 user, 250,000 trial online experiment to study the effects of slider appearance, and find that decorations along the slider considerably bias the distribution of responses received. Using two separate experimental tasks, the trade-offs between bias, accuracy, and speed-of-use are explored and design recommendations for optimal slider implementations are proposed.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (pn0240-file4.zip)
pn0240-file4.zip
suppl.mov (pn0240-file3.mp4)
Supplemental video

References

[1]
Gunnar Borg and Elisabet Borg. 1991. A General Psychophysical Scale of Blackness and Its Possibilities as a Test of Rating Behaviour. Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.
[2]
Lei Chang. 1994. A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied psychological measurement 18, 3: 205-215.
[3]
C. Connolly and T. Fleiss. 1997. A study of efficiency and accuracy in the transformation from RGB to CIELAB color space. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 6, 7: 1046-1048. http://doi.org/10.1109/83.597279
[4]
Mick P. Couper, Michael W. Traugott, and Mark J. Lamias. 2001. Web survey design and administration. Public opinion quarterly 65, 2: 230-253.
[5]
Geoff Cumming. 2013. The New Statistics Why and How. Psychological Science: 0956797613504966. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
[6]
Geoff Cumming and Sue Finch. 2005. Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. The American Psychologist 60, 2: 170-180. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170
[7]
Thomas J. DiCiccio and Bradley Efron. 1996. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical Science 11, 3: 189-228. http://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1032280214
[8]
Pierre Dragicevic, Fanny Chevalier, and Stephane Huot. 2014. Running an HCI Experiment in Multiple Parallel Universes. CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 607- 618. http://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2578881
[9]
John E. Hunter Frank L. Schmidt. 1997. Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data.
[10]
M. Freyd. 1923. The Graphic Rating Scale. Journal of Educational Psychology 14, 2: 83-102. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0074329
[11]
Frederik Funke and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2012. Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should Be Made from Visual Analogue Scales and Not from 5-Point Scales. Field Methods 24, 3: 310-327. http://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12444061
[12]
Joachim Gerich. 2007. Visual analogue scales for mode-independent measurement in self-administered questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods 39, 4: 985-992. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192994
[13]
Eric Gilbert. 2014. What if We Ask a Different Question?: Social Inferences Create Product Ratings Faster. Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2759-2762. http://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557081
[14]
Michael Gleicher, Michael Correll, Christine Nothelfer, and Steven Franconeri. 2013. Perception of Average Value in Multiclass Scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12: 2316-2325. http://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.183
[15]
G. Ljunggren G Neely. 1992. Comparison between the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Category Ratio Scale (CR-10) for the evaluation of leg exertion. International journal of sports medicine 13, 2: 133-6. http://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007--1021244
[16]
Mary HS Hayes and Donald G. Patterson. 1921. Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychol Bull 18, 1: 98-9.
[17]
Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing Graphical Perception: Using Mechanical Turk to Assess Visualization Design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 203-212. http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753357
[18]
Marianne Jensen Hjermstad, Peter M. Fayers, Dagny F. Haugen, et al. 2011. Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 41, 6: 1073-1093. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
[19]
E. C. Huskisson. 1974. Measurement of pain. The Lancet 304, 7889: 1127-1131.
[20]
Don A. Dillman Jolene D. Smyth. 2006. Effects of Using Visual Design Principles to Group Response Options in Web Surveys. International Journal of Internet Science.
[21]
Aniket Kittur, Ed H. Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 453-456. http://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357127
[22]
R. Likert. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22 140: 55.
[23]
Dawn M. Marsh-Richard, Erin S. Hatzis, Charles W. Mathias, Nicholas Venditti, and Donald M. Dougherty. 2009. Adaptive Visual Analog Scales (AVAS): A Modifiable Software Program for the Creation, Administration, and Scoring of Visual Analog Scales. Behavior research methods 41, 1: 99-106. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.99
[24]
Heather M. McCormack, David J. de L Horne, and Simon Sheather. 1988. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychological medicine 18, 04: 1007-1019.
[25]
Hendrik Müller, Aaron Sedley, and Elizabeth Ferrall-Nunge. 2014. Designing Unbiased Surveys for HCI Research. CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1027-1028. http://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2567822
[26]
Gregory Neely. 1995. Properties of a category ratio scale (CR-10) and the visual analogue scale (VAS): a comparison with magnitude estimation, line production, and category scaling. Dept. of Psychology, Stockholm University.
[27]
Bing Pan, Arch G. Woodside, and Fang Meng. 2014. How Contextual Cues Impact Response and Conversion Rates of Online Surveys. Journal of Travel Research 53, 1: 58-68. http://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513484195
[28]
Agnès Paul-Dauphin, Francis Guillemin, Jean-Marc Virion, and Serge Briançon. 1999. Bias and Precision in Visual Analogue Scales: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Epidemiology 150, 10: 1117-1127. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009937
[29]
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539-569. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710--100452
[30]
Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2010. Design and formatting in Internet-based research. In Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research, S. D. Gosling and J. A. Johnson (eds.). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 29-43.
[31]
Ulf-Dietrich Reips and Frederik Funke. 2008. Intervallevel measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods 40, 3: 699-704. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.699
[32]
Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, M. Six Silberman, Andrew Zaldivar, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. Who Are the Crowdworkers?: Shifting Demographics in Mechanical Turk. CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2863-2872. http://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753873
[33]
Paul van Schaik and Jonathan Ling. 2003. Using online surveys to measure three key constructs of the quality of human-computer interaction in web sites: psychometric properties and implications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59, 5: 545-567. http://doi.org/10.1016/S10715819(03)00078--8
[34]
J. Scott and E. C. Huskisson. 1976. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2, 2: 175-184.
[35]
Daniel R. Smith and Bruce N. Walker. 2002. Tickmarks, axes, and labels: The effects of adding context to auditory graphs. International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD). Retrieved March 31, 2015 from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/51392
[36]
George W. Torrance, David Feeny, and William Furlong. 2001. Visual Analog Scales Do They Have a Role in the Measurement of Preferences for Health States? Medical Decision Making 21, 4: 329-334.
[37]
Roger Tourangeau, Mick P. Couper, and Frederick Conrad. 2004. Spacing, Position, and Order Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 68, 3: 368-393. http://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh035
[38]
Li-Jen Weng. 2004. Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64, 6: 956-972. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674
[39]
SurveyMonkey: Free online survey software & questionnaire tool. Retrieved March 30, 2015 from https://www.surveymonkey.com/
[40]
Google Forms - create and analyze surveys, for free. Retrieved March 30, 2015 from http://www.google.ca/forms/about/
[41]
Amazon Mechanical Turk - Welcome. Retrieved March 30, 2015 from https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
[42]
Beyond Significance Testing: Statistics Reform in the Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition. http://www.apa.org. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4316151.aspx

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Ítems tipo Likert vs. Ítems continuos: ¿Qué opción es mejor?Revista Internacional de Sociología10.3989/ris.2024.82.2.M23-0482:2(e252)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report French TranslationIntellectual and Developmental Disabilities10.1352/1934-9556-62.5.33962:5(339-353)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024
  • (2024)So You Want to Do ESM? 10 Essential Topics for Implementing the Experience-Sampling MethodAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science10.1177/251524592412679127:3Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The Effect of Visual Appearance on the Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2016
    6108 pages
    ISBN:9781450333627
    DOI:10.1145/2858036
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 May 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Badges

    • Best Paper

    Author Tags

    1. crowdsourced study
    2. slider
    3. tick marks
    4. visual analogue scales

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHI'16
    Sponsor:
    CHI'16: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 7 - 12, 2016
    California, San Jose, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 565 of 2,435 submissions, 23%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI '25
    CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)256
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Ítems tipo Likert vs. Ítems continuos: ¿Qué opción es mejor?Revista Internacional de Sociología10.3989/ris.2024.82.2.M23-0482:2(e252)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report French TranslationIntellectual and Developmental Disabilities10.1352/1934-9556-62.5.33962:5(339-353)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024
    • (2024)So You Want to Do ESM? 10 Essential Topics for Implementing the Experience-Sampling MethodAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science10.1177/251524592412679127:3Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
    • (2024)Digital learning about patients: An online survey of German medical students investigating learning strategies for family medical video consultationsDIGITAL HEALTH10.1177/2055207624123007010Online publication date: 5-Feb-2024
    • (2024)The Impact of Data Privacy on Users' Smartphone App Adoption DecisionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765258:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
    • (2024)Exploring Users' Mental Models and Privacy Concerns During Interconnected InteractionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765048:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
    • (2024)Who did it? How User Agency is influenced by Visual Properties of Generated ImagesProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676335(1-17)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Designing Interactive Privacy Labels for Advanced Smart Home Device Configuration OptionsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661527(3372-3388)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Beyond Aesthetics: Evaluating Response Widgets for Reliability & Construct Validity of Scale QuestionnairesExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650751(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • (2024)Input Visualization: Collecting and Modifying Data with Visual RepresentationsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642808(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media