1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 14, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Q-Sort methodology has been used to study participants’ subjective views on various topics (Brown, 1996). The task has historically been completed by manually sorting cards into categories that force responses into a normal distribution (Brown, 1996). Data collection using this method is time consuming and manual data entry is prone to human error. We describe here QMethod Software – a computerized web-based application that allows participants to sort and record their responses online. This online application eliminates the need for researchers to attend the study sessions and to manually enter data. QMethod Software described here is currently being used in both applied and cognitive psychology studies, including a clinical study that evaluates participants’ perception of behaviours seen as most characteristic or most uncharacteristic of psychological aggression or coercive control in situations of intimate partner violence. In a health psychology study, it is being used to examine people’s perceptions of food allergy, and in a psycholinguistics lab it was used to evaluate the affective valence, abstractness, and semantic richness ratings of words. We will show here that the data obtained from one of these psycholinguistic studies (abstractness/concreteness) correlates highly with existing measures (Brysbaert, Warriner & Kuperman, 2014) thus demonstrating that the Q-sort methodology and this particular implementation, the QMethod Software app, reproduces more typical evaluations/assessments in the psycholinguistics literature.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
2020-05-13
2025-05-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmed, S., Bryant, L., Tizro, Z., & Shickle, D.
    (2012) Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Social Science & Medicine, 74(7), 997–1004. doi:  10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alberts, K., & Ankenmann, B.
    (2001) Simulating Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlations in Q-Sorts Using Excel. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 221–226. doi:  10.1177/089443930101900208
     https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900208 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker, J.
    (2008) Q-methodology: An alternative approach to research in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 28, 917–925. doi:  10.1016/j.nedt.2008.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, S.
    (1996) Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 561–567. doi:  10.1177/104973239600600408
     https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408 [Google Scholar]
  5. Block, J.
    (1961) The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. 10.1037/13141‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/13141-000 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2008) The Q-sort in character appraisal: Encoding subjective impressions of persons quantitatively. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:  10.1037/11748‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11748-000 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A., & Kuperman, V.
    (2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑013‑0403‑5
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davies, Mark
    (2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Retrieved fromcorpus.byu.edu/coha/
  9. Freberg, K., Lutfallah, S., Saling, K., & Freberg, L.
    (2019) What Makes an Influencer Influential?Using the California Q-sort to Predict Social Media Influence. Manuscript in preparation.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ghandour, B., Madison Donner, Zoe Ross-Nash, Maryn Hayward, Madalyn Pinto, & Tara DeAngelis
    (2018) Perfectionism in past and present anorexia nervosa. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 671–690.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodrich, M.
    (2016) Exploring School Counselors’ Motivations to Work with Lgbtqqi Students in Schools: A Q Methodology Study. Professional School Counseling 2016, 21(1a). doi:  10.5330/1096‑2409‑20.1a.5
     https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ho, G. W. K.
    (2017) Examining perceptions and attitudes: A review of Likert-type scales versus Q-methodology. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 674–689. doi:  10.1177/0193945916661302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916661302 [Google Scholar]
  13. Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Correa, J. C., Sakarkar, G., Ngo, G., Ruiz-Fernández, S., Butcher, N., & Yamada, Y.
    (2017) Placing joy, surprise and sadness in space: A cross-linguistic study. Psychological Research, 81(4), 750–763. doi:  10.1007/s00426‑016‑0787‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0787-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Serfass, D., & Sherman, R.
    (2013) A methodological note on ordered Q-Sort ratings. Journal Of Research In Personality, 47(6), 853–858. doi:  10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Snefjella, B., Généreux, M., & Kuperman, V.
    (2018) Historical evolution of concrete and abstract language revisited. Behavior Research Methods. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑018‑10712
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-10712 [Google Scholar]
  16. Warriner, A., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2013) Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑012‑0314‑x
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x [Google Scholar]
  17. Yarar, N., & Orth, U. R.
    (2018) Consumer lay theories on healthy nutrition: A Q methodology application in Germany. Appetite, 120(Complete), 145–157. doi:  10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.026
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.026 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
Loading
Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software
The Mental Lexicon 14, 415 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concreteness; online; psycholinguistics; psychology; Q-Method; ratings; software

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error