Evaluating assumptions of scales for subjective assessment of thermal environments – Do laypersons perceive them the way, we researchers believe?
Date
2020-01-10Author
Schweiker, Marcel
Maíra, Andréu
Al-Atrash, Farah
Al-Khatri, Hanan
Alprianti, Rea Risky
Alsaad, Hayder
Amin, Rucha
Ampatzi, Eleni
Arsano, Alpha Yacob
Azar, Elie
Bannazadeh, Bahareh
Batagarawa, Amina
Becker, Sussanne
Buonocore, Carolina
Cao, Bin
Choi, Joon-Ho
Chun, Chungyoon
Daanen, Hein
Damiati, Siti Aisyah
Daniel, Lyrian
Vecchi, Renata De
Dhaka, Shivraj
Domínguez-Amarillo, Samuel
Dudkiewicz, Edyta
Edappilly, Lakshmi Prabha
Fernández-Agüera, Jesica
Folkerts, Mireille
Frijns, Arjan
Gaona, Gabriel
Garg, Vishal
Gauthier, Stephanie
Jabbari, Shahla Ghaffari
Harimi, Djamila
Hellwig, Runa T
Huebner, Gesche M
Jin, Quan
Jowkar, Mina
Kim, Jungsoo
King, Nelson
Kingma, Boris
Koerniawan, M. Donny
Kolarik, Jakub
Kumar, Shailendra
Kwok, Alison
Lamberts, Roberto
Laska, Marta
Lee, M.C. Jeffrey
Lee, Yoonhee
Lindermayr, Vanessa
Mahaki, Mohammadbagher
Udochukwu, Marcel-Okafor
Marín-Restrepo, Laura
Marquardsen, Anna
Francesco, Franscesco
Mathur, Jyotirmay
Mino-Rodriguez, Isabel
Montazami, Azadeh
Mou, Di
Moujalled, Bassam
Nakajima, Mia
Ng, Edward
Okafor, Marcellinus
Olweny, Mark R. O.
Ouyang, Wanlu
Abreu, Ana Lígia Papst de
Pérez-Fargallo, Alexis
Rajapaksha, Indrika
Ramos, Greici
Rashid, Saif
Reinhart, Christoph F.
Rivera, Ma. Isabel
Salmanzadeh, Mazyar
Schakib-Ekbatan, Karin
Schiavon, Stefano
Shooshtarian, Salman
Shukuya, Masanori
Soebarto, Veronica
Suhendri, Suhendri
Tahsildoost, Mohammad
Tartarini, Federico
Teli, Despoina
Tewari, Priyam
Thapa, Samar
Trebilcock, Maureen
Trojan, Jörg
Tukur, Ruqayyatu B.
Voelker, Conrad
Yam, Yeung
Yang, Liu
Zapata-Lancaster, Gabriela
Zhai, Yongchao
Zhu, Yingxin
Zomorodian, ZahraSadat
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
People’s subjective response to any thermal environment is commonly investigated by using rating scales describing the degree of thermal sensation, comfort, and acceptability. Subsequent analyses of results col- lected in this way rely on the assumption that specific distances between verbal anchors placed on the scale exist and that relationships between verbal anchors from different dimensions that are assessed (e.g. thermal sensation and comfort) do not change. Another inherent assumption is that such scales are inde- pendent of the context in which they are used (climate zone, season, etc.). Despite their use worldwide, there is indication that contextual differences influence the way the scales are perceived and therefore question the reliability of the scales’ interpretation. To address this issue, a large international collabo- rative questionnaire study was conducted in 26 countries, using 21 different languages, which led to a dataset of 8225 questionnaires. Results, analysed by means of robust statistical techniques, revealed that only a subset of the responses are in accordance with the mentioned assumptions. Significant differences appeared between groups of participants in their perception of the scales, both in relation to distances of the anchors and relationships between scales. It was also found that respondents’ interpretations of scales changed with contextual factors, such as climate, season, and language. These findings highlight the need to carefully consider context-dependent factors in interpreting and reporting results from ther- mal comfort studies or post-occupancy evaluations, as well as to revisit the use of rating scales and the analysis methods used in thermal comfort studies to improve their reliability.