UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The semantic differential scale presents a concept or object along with opposing adjective pairs placed at the ends of a continuum, and respondents indicate their position between these poles. This captures the connotative meaning of the concept on dimensions such as evaluation, potency and activity. It allows nuanced measurement of attitudes beyond simple agreement or disagreement. Because the stem mentions bipolar adjective pairs like good–bad or strong–weak, it clearly describes the semantic differential scale.

Option A:
A rating scale generally asks respondents to judge an object on a single numerical or descriptive continuum, such as from 1 to 10, but it does not necessarily employ bipolar adjective pairs. While rating scales are common, the specific format in the stem is more precisely described by the semantic differential technique.

Option B:
The semantic differential scale uses several such bipolar items and can summarise responses by averaging across them, providing profiles of how concepts are perceived. This emphasis on paired adjectives and connotative meaning fits the stem closely, confirming semantic differential scale as the correct completion.

Option C:
A nominal scale merely labels categories without order or quantitative interpretation, such as types of occupation. It does not involve rating positions between bipolar adjectives and therefore does not match the description in the question.

Option D:
A rank order scale requires respondents to arrange items in order of preference, not to locate them on continua between opposite adjectives. Hence, rank order scale is not the appropriate term here.

Statements A, B, C and E correctly represent the main features of common attitude scaling techniques. Likert scales use agreement ratings, semantic differential scales use bipolar adjectives and Thurstone scales rely on judges’ weights. These tools generate numerical scores that allow researchers to quantify attitudes for analysis, so E is also correct. Statement D is false because attitude scales are a hallmark of quantitative research and explicitly produce numeric data.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all four true statements and excludes D, which mischaracterises the quantitative nature of attitude scales. It captures both the structural features of the scales and their function in converting subjective attitudes into numerical form.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete as it omits E, failing to highlight that the purpose of these scales is to create data suitable for statistical analysis. Without E, the significance of assigning numbers to attitudes remains implicit rather than explicit.

Option C:
Option C includes B, C and E but leaves out A, so it does not mention Likert scaling, which is one of the most widely used attitude measures. This omission makes the overview of attitude scales incomplete.

Option D:
Option D contains A, C and E but omits B, ignoring semantic differential scales, which are important for measuring connotative meaning. Leaving out this type of scale means the option cannot be considered a full set of correct statements.

The Thurstone scale, or equal-appearing interval scale, involves having judges rate a large pool of statements on favourableness toward an attitude object. Statements with diverse scale values are then selected, and respondents indicate which statements they agree with. Their attitude score is computed as the mean or median of the scale values of the agreed statements. Thus, the method described in the stem is correctly called the Thurstone scale.

Option A:
Guttman scaling aims at cumulative ordering of items where endorsement of a higher-level item implies endorsement of all lower-level ones, and it does not rely on expert-assigned interval values in the same way.

Option B:
The Thurstone approach seeks to create intervals that appear equal in favourableness to judges, thereby approximating an interval scale for attitude measurement. Because the stem emphasises expert-assigned values and mean scores based on endorsed items, this option fits exactly.

Option C:
Likert scales rely on respondents’ ratings across ordered categories and summing scores, without expert judgment of individual item scale values, so they do not match the description given.

Option D:
The Bogardus scale focuses on social distance across relational categories and does not employ expert valuations of statements’ favourableness.

The semantic differential scale presents a concept, such as “online learning,” followed by pairs of opposite adjectives separated by a series of points, for example good–bad or useful–useless. Respondents mark positions between each pair, indicating their feelings about the concept. This method captures the connotative meaning that people associate with the object. Therefore, the bipolar adjective rating described in the stem is known as the semantic differential scale.

Option A:
The Thurstone scale uses statements with predetermined scale values and requires experts to judge favourability; respondents then indicate which statements they agree with. It does not use simple bipolar adjective pairs. Hence, it is not the right completion.

Option B:
The Likert scale uses agree–disagree statements rather than adjective pairs and sums responses across items to form an attitude score. It is different in structure and purpose from the semantic differential. So this option is not correct here.

Option C:
Option C, semantic differential scale, focuses on the psychological meaning of concepts through several adjective continua. Its visual layout and bipolar nature match the description in the question, making this option correct.

Option D:
The Bogardus scale measures social distance by asking whether respondents would accept members of other groups in increasingly close relationships. It does not use adjective pairs, so it is not the scale referred to in the stem.

A ranking scale requires respondents to place items in a preferred order, such as first, second, third and so on. This produces ordinal data because the order is meaningful but the exact differences between ranks are not known. Ranking scales are useful when researchers want relative preferences among several alternatives. Because the stem emphasises arranging items in order of preference, a ranking scale is the correct answer.

Option A:
Nominal scales only classify items into categories without any inherent order, such as types of institution or subject specialisation. They do not capture preference ranking or ordering among categories. Therefore, a nominal scale does not correspond to the procedure described in the question.

Option B:
Rating scales ask respondents to indicate the degree of agreement, satisfaction or intensity on a continuum, such as from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Ratings express intensity rather than an ordered list of multiple items relative to each other. Hence, rating is not the best completion for the stem.

Option C:
A ranking scale records positions of items like most preferred to least preferred, allowing the researcher to see relative standing among options. This is different from measuring equal intervals or absolute amounts. Since the question describes ordering items by preference, ranking scale correctly captures the intended idea.

Option D:
An interval scale assumes equal distances between successive points and enables meaningful addition and subtraction, such as in temperature measurement. It is not defined by asking respondents to order a list of options. Therefore, interval is not the appropriate term here.

The Bogardus social distance scale presents a series of relational situations, such as accepting someone as a close relative, neighbour or citizen, and asks respondents to indicate the closest relation they would accept with members of particular groups. The responses indicate the level of social distance or acceptance. It is widely used to study prejudice and intergroup relations. Hence, the social distance scale described in the stem is known as the Bogardus scale.

Option A:
The Thurstone scale uses a set of statements rated by judges to assign scale values and then asks respondents to indicate agreement; it is not constructed around graded social relationships. Thus, it does not match the type of scale mentioned.

Option B:
The Likert scale measures attitudes using agreement–disagreement responses to statements and sums scores across items; it does not focus specifically on social distance in terms of relational closeness.

Option C:
The Bogardus scale uniquely captures the willingness to accept out-group members in roles of varying intimacy, from close kin to exclusion. This graded relational structure corresponds exactly to the description given, making this option correct.

Option D:
The Guttman scale is a cumulative scale where agreement with a stronger statement implies agreement with weaker ones and may be used in many contexts, but it is not specifically the classic social distance scale referenced here.

The semantic differential scale measures attitudes by presenting bipolar adjective pairs anchored at the ends of a continuum, and respondents mark their position between them. It captures the connotative meaning of concepts along dimensions like evaluation, potency and activity. This technique yields interval-like data and allows researchers to profile the image of an object or idea. Therefore, a scale using opposite adjectives is correctly called the semantic differential scale.

Option A:
Likert scales ask respondents to indicate degrees of agreement or disagreement with statements and typically use ordered categories like strongly agree to strongly disagree, not bipolar adjective pairs. Thus, they do not match the stem.

Option B:
Thurstone scales use statements previously judged for favourableness and assign scale values; respondents indicate agreement, and their attitude score is computed from these values. They are not based on simple adjective pairs along a line.

Option C:
The semantic differential approach provides visual continua between adjectives, allowing nuanced responses and analysis of multiple dimensions of meaning. Because the stem highlights pairs like “good–bad” and “strong–weak”, this option fits precisely and is correct.

Option D:
Rating-by-ranking is not a standard name for any classical scaling method and does not describe the specific bipolar adjective format of the semantic differential.

The Guttman scale, or cumulative scale, arranges items so that they represent increasing levels of a trait or attitude. In an ideal Guttman scale, if a respondent agrees with a high-level item, they would also agree with all lower-level items, creating a predictable response pattern. Scalogram analysis assesses how well the items approximate this cumulative structure. Therefore, the technique described in the stem is correctly termed a Guttman scale.

Option A:
Likert scales do not assume cumulative properties; respondents may agree with some items and disagree with others at similar levels without violating the model. They rely on summated ratings rather than hierarchical cumulative ordering.

Option B:
Semantic differential scales use bipolar adjective continua and do not consist of statements ordered by strength of attitude in a cumulative manner.

Option C:
The Guttman approach is particularly useful when measuring acceptance of progressively more extreme positions or behaviours, as it reveals how far along a continuum respondents are willing to go. This cumulative logic matches the stem’s requirement that agreement with a strong statement implies agreement with weaker ones, making this option correct.

Option D:
Thurstone scales employ expert-rated equal-appearing interval statements but do not require cumulative patterns across items in respondent choices.