UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

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.