Public Opin q 1958 Vaughn 19 34

8/18/2019 Public Opin q 1958 Vaughn 19 34

1/16

A Scale for Assessing Socio-

Economic Status in

Survey Research

B Y

C H AR L E S L . V A U G H N

This article contains the description of a socio-economic scale based on the answers

to five simple questions. The scale has been found useful in urban and rural areas

and is particularly adapted to survey research.

Charles L. Vaughn is in the Marketing and Social Research Division of the Psycho-

logical Corporation.

COMMON METHOD USED

in assessing socio-economic status of respondent

homes in survey research is to obtain interviewer ratings of the variable.

These ratings are generally based upon a quick inspection of the dwelling

unit in which the person is conducting the interview and upon the personal

care and speech of the respondent The interviewer may or may not have

advance knowledge of the general characteristics of the area in which he or

she is working. If the interviewer is approaching people on the street, the

personal care and speech of the respondents are almost the sole guides he or

she has for making the ratings.

Although some of the largest differences in survey results are revealed in

the analyses by socio-economic groups, ratings suffer a nu m be r of limitations,

of which the following would appear to be the principal ones:

1

(1) They are not very reliable:

2

(2) They require considerable interviewer instruction—which may con-

siderably reduce the instruction that can be given on the aspects of

the questionnaire more directly pertinent to the research problem at

hand .

(3) The ratings may fail to differentiate between households. In the

usual situation, interviewers rate the large majority of homes in the

mid dle gro up . Th is error of central tendency is com mo n to a great

many types of ratings. In the survey situation, of course, the tendency

may be reduced or eliminated by assigning quotas by socio-economic

group)—although other errors may be introduced by this procedure.

1

For a

detailed review

of the

subject

of

social class

see W.

Lloyd Warner, Marcia Meeker,

and

Kenneth

Eelj, Social Class

in

America.

Chicago: Science Research Associates,

1949.

xiil

+

274 pp.

3

Vaughn, Charles

L. and

William

A.

Reynold*. Reliability

of

Personal Interview Data.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 1951, pp. 61-63.

a t AAP ORI n s t i t u t i on a l M e

m b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4

h t t p : / / p o q . oxf or d j o ur n a l s . or g /

D o wnl o a d e d

f r om

http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/


2/16


3/16

SCALE FOR ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATU S 21

of the household. These reports, however, were not substituted for ratings

because hou sehold inc om e reflects less of the social aspect of socio-economic

status than desired. There arc also other objections to use of household in-

come, viz: questioning on the subject tends to irritate respondents and thus

to demoralize interviewers. Family income also fluctuates widely and rela-

tively few persons in the househ old can repo rt reliably on th e subject. A no the r

solution that was considered was to spread interviewer ratings over twelve

rather than four groups, but this procedure still resulted in poor discrimina-

tion.

RESEARCH PLAN

Seven questions were included in a national personal interview survey of

7,500 homes in urban territory and rural villages. The survey was conducted

in Janu ary an d F ebru ary , 1951. Each answ er to five of these seven que stions

was then scaled against interviewers' ratings of socio-economic status. The

scaling was done in such a way that the scale values, or scores, assigned each

answer would reflect the deviation of the answer from the mean of the dis-

tribution of socio-economic status. All scale values were expressed in terms of

the standard deviation of the distribution of households by socio-economic

status. Since all answers were expressed as deviations from the mean in terms

of equivalent units, the scale values assigned the respective answers were

then additive. Once the scale values had been determined, they were con-

verted to code numbers appropriate for IBM processing. The questioning

and recording were condensed for field use; and scale results from subse-

quent studies were cross-validated against interviewer ratings.

The Questions.—

(1) Are you or is somebody else the chief wage earner in your home?

(2) (About chief wage earner) What is (your, his, her) occupation?

(Record occupation of chief wave earner in detail by type of work

and position)

(3) {About chief wage earner) About how far did (you, he, she) go in

school? 8th grade or less; 1-2 years high school; completed high

school; some college; completed college.

(4) Is there a car in your ho m e ( I f Yes) How many (If one car only)

Was it bought new or used

(5) Is there a telephone in your hom e (If Yes) Party or private line

(6) Do you rent or own the place where you are living?

(7a) How many bedrooms are there in your home

(7b) How many people live there?

These particular questions were included in the study because it was

judged on an

a priori

basis that they would differentiate homes on a socio-

econom ic basis. Q uestion 1 was included to set u p Qu estions 2 and 3 . It

a t AAP ORI n s t i t u t i on a l M e

m b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4


D o wnl o a d e d f r om



4/16

22 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

was believed that Questions 2 and 3 would differentiate along the entire

ra ng e; Qu estions 4 and 5, at the bottom end of the scale; e tc

One might assume that Questions 2 and 3 would be sufficient, and this as-

sumption is correct, except for the fact that more than two questions were

necessary to provide relatively fine discriminations. The questions on num-

ber of bedrooms and number of people in the home (Q's 7a and 7b) were

included to obtain an index of crowding, but the questions met with so

much respondent resistance that they were later dropped. The index of

crowding also posed difficulties in processing and was not very discriminating.

The Sample. The national sample in which the questions were originally

include d represented all urban and small tow n ( rura l non-farm) households

in the United States. Interviews were made in 123 localities, i.e. standard

metropolitan areas or non-metropolitan counties, and in 273 cities, towns, and

villages within those areas.

Within cities, towns, and villages, interviewers were assigned to spots on

the basis of socio-economic maps of the places, prepared by field supervisors,

or Research Associates of Th e Psychological Co rporation . These m aps showed

the respective parts of the locality where the upper, middle, and lower socio-

economic groups resided. Because of variations in socio-economic status, even

within small areas in a city, interviewers were assigned a specific quota of

interviews—i.e. a certain number of interviews with persons in the upper

group, in the middle group, and in the bottom group. The interviewer had

to use judgment in selecting households within these three groups, and rated

the homes as he interviewed.

O nly on e person was interviewed pe r househo ld. T h e individuals inter-

viewed in the households were chosen to match the distribution of individ-

uals aged eight years and older in the United States population as shown by

th e C ensus of 1950. If a person was not at ho m e in a hou sehold, a substitute

was taken, either in that household or in the next household. So that persons

who are frequently away from home would be given some weight in the

sample, a small percentage of interviews were made in shopping districts near

the areas assigned. The interviewing was supervised locally by 120 psy-

chologists serving as Research Associates of The Psychological Corporation.

DERIVATION OF THE SCALE

The Criterion.

The criteria against which the answers to the questions

were scaled, were interviewers' ratings of the socio-economic status of the

households in which respondents resided. These ratings were along a three-

point scale, upper, middle, and lower socio-economic group. Assignments in

a given town or city were made in such a way that 30 per cent of the ratings

were up pe r ; 40 per cent m idd le ; and 30 per cent lowe r . T h e raters

were thus forced to discriminate.

a t AAP ORI n s t i t u t i on a l M e m

b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4

h t t p : / / p o q . oxf or d j o ur n a l s . o

r g /




5/16

SCALE FOR ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS 23

The use of interviewer ratings as the criterion may, of course, raise some

questions. However, these ratings, based in part upon socio-economic maps

of the respective interviewing localities, were the basis of breakdowns used

in previous studies, and differences in answers between broad socio-economic

groups were generally quite significant. One aim of the present research was

to develop a scale that would discriminate on much the same basis as the

interviewer ratings had prior to the change in sampling methods, so that

trend comparisons would not be jeopardized by artifacts.

Also, it seemed probable that the persons best able to distinguish between

broad groups locally were the interviewers who called upon the homes and

talked to the people therein even though differentiation in the middle ranges

might not be a fine one. At least the intelligent field interviewer, supervised

by a local resident at the professional level and assisted by a socio-economic

map, would appear to be a better judge of the status of homes than would

someone basing this decision upon an

a priori

and theoretical conception of

what constitutes social status.

As a basis for scaling the answers to the five questions and parts thereof,

the assumption was made that socio-economic status is normally distributed.

This assumption can not be grossly in error. All it means is that some house-

holds have a very high status and others a very low status, but most fall in

a large middle group, those above average being distributed along a bell-

shaped curve in about the same fashion as those below average. Certainly the

normal curve

approximates

the un der lyin g distribution of socio-economic

status, and the ready availability of tables of areas under the normal curve

facilitates scaling and statistical analysis.

Scaling Against Criterion.

—The detailed scaling procedure w ill be illus-

trated below for the occupation of the Chief W age Ea rner . T he other

answ ers wer e similarly scaled.

Respondents' reports of occupation were classified into the standard Cen-

sus categories: Pro prietors , m ana ger s, an d officials except far m ; profes-

sional worke rs, semi-professional wor ke rs; salesmen ; e tc Thes e were then

cross analyzed by socio-economic rating. To illustrate, details of the

pro ced ure for pro prieto rs, m an ag ers , an d officials except far m will be

shown,

PROPRIETORS, MANAGERS, AND

OFFICI LS

Fraction in Lower Socio-Economic Gro up 092

Fraction in Middle Socio-Economic Grou p 34 1

Fraction in Upper Socio-Economic Group 56 7

Total 1.000

a t AAP ORI n s t i t u t i on a l M e m b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4


D o wnl o a d e d

f r om



6/16

24 PUBLIC OP INIO N QUAR TERLY

It was assumed that some of this occupational group would have a rela-

tively high socio-economic status, some

a

relatively

low one, but

that

the

group would tend

to

peak

at a

mid-point along

the

socio-economic

con-

tinuum.

K nowing the fractions

of

proprietors, managers,

e tc

who fell

in the

upper,

middle, and lower group respectively, one may compute the distance of the

mean of this group (Mp) from the mean of the distribution (Mt). This dis-

tance

m ay, in

turn

be

converted into standard deviation units

of the

larger

distribution ( by solving these simultaneous equations:

Equat ion

1. _c

£

(X - M

v

) (X - M,)

=

M^

a, ( O a,


7/16


8/16

26 PUBLIC OPIN ION QUARTERLY

In assigning field scores to the respective answers, we have grouped to-

geth er the answers that w ere no more th an 0 5* apart in term s of the scaled

scores. This procedure simplifies scoring in the field and IBM processing in

the office. Since in actual practice there will always be some do n't k n ow or

n o answ er responses we have scaled these alternatives alon g w ith th e others

—as shown in Table 1.

An example of how the score is obtained in the field may be helpful.

Suppose the respondent reports that: (k) the home has a private line tele-

phone; (1) the family owns the home; (m) there are two or more cars in

the household; (n) the chief wage earner is a drug store owner; and (o) the

chief wage earner grad uate d from college. T h e interview er records the scores

as follows:

k _ 2 _

1 _ 2 _

m 3

_

The total socio-economic scaled score for the household is 13.

Thirteen is the maximum score that a household can make. The lowest

score wo uld be m ad e by a household with : no telephone (score = 0 ) ;

rente rs occu pying it (score = 1 ) ; no car (score = 1 ) ; the chief w ag e earner

a laborer (score = 0 ) ; an d with the chief wag e earne r a person w ho left

school after finishing gra m m ar school (score = 0 ). T h e total score for this

household at the lowest level would be

two.

This range in scores from 2 to 13

facilitates IB M processing. A ll scores except 13 are p unc hed as they are . Scores

of

13

are converted to l ' s du rin g the inspection process.

In actual practice, the five basic questions are printed on one side of a

5 x 8 card wi th the field scores correspon ding to the response alternatives

thereon. Only the response record for numbers appears on the questionnaire

blank. Since the office coding of occupation is time consuming and tedious,

illustrative occupations and scores therefore are printed on the second side

of the card containing the questions, so that the interviewer records merely

the number corresponding to the occupational level.

DISTRIBUTION OF SCALED SCORES

Illustration 1 and Table 2 show the distributions of total scaled scores

from two studies:

Study #1. T hi s study was based upon

8,000

interviews, a cross-section of

all households in urban territory and rural villages in the United States.



r g /

D o wnl o a d e d

f r om



9/16

U

S

u

o

P

IS 1 S 0

r

/

/

/

f

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

I

1

1

1

S

S

O

O

E

C

S

-

8

0

U

b

a

R

a

V

a

n

e

v

e

w

—

—

W

i

n

e

B

a

B

o

a

1

M

7

3

±

2

8

S

u

1

6

R

o

V

a

n

e

v

e

w

A

S

u

—

1

0

U

b

n

e

v

e

w

F

u

y

1

B

o

m

e

—

N

m

C

v

w

h

M

o

7

3

a

a

±

2

8

o

3 J

P 8

zo

o

at AAPOR Institutional Member on August 5, 2014poq.oxfordjournals.org/

http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/


10/16

T

A

1

S

C

A

S

C

A

F

E

S

C

O

V

O

A

W

E

F

R

M

TH

F

V

T

M

S

S

e

S

T

e

O

h

p

H

m

O

h

p

C

O

h

p

O

u

o

H

d

H

h

d

E

o

H

d

H

h

d

F

e

d

S

+

5

o

+

9

.

0

o

+

4

P

v

e

n

D

t

k

w

n

a

.

0

o

+

4

P

y

n

O

h

m

e

R

h

m

e

n

a

-

5

o

-

9

N

p

T

w

o

m

o

e

c

o

o

c

b

n

w

O

c

b

u

n

c

d

t

k

w

n

a

P

o

e

o

s

m

p

o

w

k

p

o

e

o

m

a

e

a

S

e

m

e

c

e

c

w

k

C

a

s

m

e

f

o

m

e

m

i

s

r

e

e

u

m

-

p

o

d

t

k

w

n

a

w

p

o

e

v

w

k

o

a

v

O

h

s

v

w

k

d

m

e

c

s

v

c

w

l

a

e

C

m

p

e

e

C

e

S

m

e

c

e

C

m

p

e

e

H

1

3

y

H

D

o

t

k

w

n

a

w

8

h

g

a

o

e

1

§

>

at AAPOR Institutional Member on August 5, 2014poq.oxfordjournals.org/

http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/


11/16


12/16

PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

and judgment samples

are

customarily somew hat high er

on the

socio-

economic ladder than are samples from which interviewer judgment has been

largely removed. The small divergence of the distributions from normal,

however, does

not

seriously limit

the

usefulness

of the

scale.

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCALED SOOO-ECONO MIC SCORES

FROM Two NATIONAL SURVEYS

Socio-economic

Score

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Total

Per

Cent

of

Households chieving

Each Score

Study fl

Urban

Rural Village

2 .7

5 .1

6 .7

9 .1

10.0

11.6

12.6

13.3

11.2

8.8

6 .0

2 .9

100.0

Study f2

Urban Only

3 .6

4 .6

6 .5

8.4

10.5

11.6

12.9

12.5

10.8

8.6

6 .1

3 .9

100.0

Suggested Letter

Grade Equivalent

and Description

A

Top (15%)

B Upper

(31%)

Middle

C Lower

(36%)

Middle

D Bottom

(18%)

(100%)

•Numbers in parentheses are approximate per cents achieving each suggested letter

grade.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SCALE

Validity of the scale is to some extent assured by the manner in which it

was constructed. However, a cross-validational study resulted in a Pearsonian

correlation coefficient of .61 between interviewer ratings of socio-economic

status and total scaled scores.

The cross-validational group comprised 1828 households representing all

households in the New Y ork, Philadelphia, and Boston Standard Metropoli-

tan Areas. Interviews were made

in

some

183

neighborhoods

in the

three

areas, the selection of neighborhoods being made by area sampling methods.

The correlation of .61 between ratings and scaled scores is as high as the

correlation obtained between ratings themselves when different interviewers

were used to rate the same households.*

O n

the

other hand,

in one

study made

in 1956 the

Pearso nia n coefficient

of correlation between original

and

repeat scaled scores from

the

same homes

was £5. This correlation was obtained w ith a group of 317 homes distributed

over

the

U nited States. Interviews were originally m ade

in the

homes

as a

* Vaughn and Reynolds, op. cit.


b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4


r g /

D o wnl o a d e d

f r om



13/16

SCALE FOR ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOM IC STATU S 31

pa rt of the M ay, 1956, Psychological B arom eter; reintcrviews w ere m ade in

the sam e homes in July, 1956, generally by different interviewers. ( T h e hom es

were those in which a tire had been purchased during the previous year.)

Certain relationships between scaled scores and other variables also indicate

a h igh degree of reliability an d validity of the scale. Fo r ex amp le, studies ind i-

cate that the following variables are closely related in the expected direction

to scaled scores: median family income, when geographic division is held

constant; percentage of homes with television sets; and percentage of Negro

homes. In fact the curves depicting the relationships arc exceptionally smooth

for social data.

Certain brands of products known to have positive prestige value show an

increasing incidence of use in groups with higher scale scores; and con-

versely, brands purchased for other reasons show greater frequency of use in

groups with lower scores. Here again the curves showing the relationships

are unusually smooth for those derived from social data.

Aside from questions in the product field, answers to questions in the

social and political areas also show the expected relationships to scaled scores,

in particular, the percentage of persons w ho answer do n't kn ow to ques-

tions in these areas.

NOTE OK USE OF THE SCALE IN FARM HOMES

Subsequent to preparation of the foregoing article the scale has been ap-

plied to a sample of 447 farm homes. This sample was a cross-section of all

farm homes in the United States and was obtained as a supplement to the

May 1957 Psychological Barometer.

No particular problems were encountered in using the scale this first time

in farm homes, and it does discriminate between homes in this group, as

shown by Table 3. On the surface, at least, the scale would appear to be as

valid with farm as with urban and rural non-farm homes.

SUM M ARY AND CO NCLUSIO NS

This report describes a scale originally designed for assessing the socio-

economic status of homes in urban territory and rural villages in the United

States. Data obtained subsequent to construction of the scale would indicate

that it is also useful with farm homes .

The scale value assigned to a home depends upon the answers of anyone

from that home to five basic questions and parts

thereof.

The questions per-

tain to : telephone own ership ; home own ership; automobile ow nership;

occupation of chief wage earner in the home; and his (or her) education.

The numerical value assigned to each answer has been determined by

scaling the respective answers against interviewers' ratings of homes in urban

territory and rural villages in the United States. These ratings were based in



D o wnl o a d e d

f r om



14/16

32 PUBLIC OP INIO N QUARTERLY

T A B L E

3

DISTRIBUTION OF SCALED SOOO-ECONO MIC SCORES

FROM

SURVEY

OF

FARM HOMES

(Special Sample

of

447 Farm Homes,

May,

1957 Psychological Barometer)

Percent of Household}

Socio Economic

Scare

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Total

chieving Bach

Score

.8

1.8

8.9

8.3

16.1

9 .4

14.3

13.6

S.I

10.3

6 .7

4 .7

100.0

part upon socio-economic maps

of

places where interviewers operated.

The

method

of

scaling

is

described

in

some detail

in

this report. Scale values

of

the respective items vary from 0 to 3 — they are essentially sta nd ard

scores.

T h e

sum of the

scores

on the

respective items

is the

total scaled score

fo r the hom e . The total scaled scores vary from 2 to 13, inclusive. T he y

are approximately normally distributed, witii a mean of about 7 and a

standard deviation of about 3.

The scale thus discriminates between homes.

The

scale appears

to be

reliable

and

valid. Scale values correlate about

.60

with interviewer ratings.

In several studies, close and consistent relationships were shown between

other variables and scaled scores. Certain of these other variables are those

that one would judge should be related to socio-economic status.

The scale

as

developed

for

field

use

requires very little space

on the

ques-

tionnaire. Children as well as adults can report the necessary facts. The ques-

tions require

no

more than

a few

minutes

of

interviewer-respondent time,

and can be asked in street as well as home interviews. The total socio-

economic score is pre-coded (by the interviewer so to speak) , and can be

punched

in one

column

of an IBM

card.

Norms appear to be relatively stable. Over a period of time, however,

scores for certain of the items may decrease in discriminative value, and the

distributions will require periodic scrutiny, although changes will probably

not

be

rapid.


b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4


r g /




15/16

SCALE FOR ASSESSING SO CiqEC ON OM IC STATU S 33

The fact that the scale distinguishes twelve-points along a continuum

makes it possible to study and highlight certain relationships not clearly

visible with a four-point scale ( A, B , C , and D ) . O n the other han d,

the scaled scores may be grouped into categories, e.g.:

' T o p ,

w ith a letter grade equivalent of A , and comprising the

highest 15 per cent of households

Upper Middle, grade equivalent B , comprising the next 31 per

cent of households;

Low er M iddle, grade equivalent C, comprising the next 36 per

cent of households; and

Bo ttom, grade equivalent D , comprising the lowest 18 per cent

of households.

With the relatively fine discrimination afforded by the scale, other groupings

may be used. Those above appear to be convenient, and the breaking points

loosely correspond with significant parameters of the normal curve, i.e. the

two inflection points and the mean or mode.

Use of all twelve points on the scale, however, makes it relatively simple

to derive mathematical expressions of various relationships—such as those

between television set ownership, incidence of Negroes, use of certain brands

of products, knowledge about various companies, etc. and socio-economic

level. W he th er o r not the m athem atical expression of these relationships

would have any practical value is open to question, although the application

of operational research techniques to problems in marketing, public relation,

and communication might be facilitated thereby.

It would also be a comparatively simple matter to ascertain with a fairly

high degree of precision the specific channels of communication that can most

effectively and efficiently be used to reach homes in which the members are

relatively ignorant on a given topic, those who do not use a given brand of

product, etc.—without relying too heavily on judgment and without re-

peating a media study for every brand of product and on every public rela-

tions topic.

The scale can also be used as a basis for comparing one community with

others across the nation in terms of: (a) its average cultural position and

(b) its variability in cultural status. This topic assumes significance in one

way when the attempt is made to apply a company-wide, or national, com-

munity relations program to a particular community. If the community is

definitely more homogeneous than the cross-section of communities and is

below average culturally, the media and specific appeals required there may

be quite different from those generally applicable. On the other hand, the

uniqueness of a community may be more apparent than real. The use of

objective measuring instruments is necessary to obtain a valid picture of

what the situation actually is.



D o wnl o a d e d

f r om



16/16

34 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

The reader will undoubtedly see many research problems associated with

the use of a scale of t-his nature. A topic, which we are now investigating,

is the variability in cultural level within neighbo rhoods vs. that between

neighborhoods. Of potentially the greatest interest, however, is probably the

subject of what specific communication channels and appeals can be used the

most efficiently to reach homes at the various cultural levels.


b e r onA u g u s t 5 ,2 0 1 4


r g /

D o wnl o a d e d

f r om

Public Opin q 1958 Vaughn 19 34

Documents

Transcript of Public Opin q 1958 Vaughn 19 34