This is the most up to date version of this scale.

Downloads

PAPER
Doyle, P. R., Gessinger, I., Edwards, J., Clark, L., Dumbleton, O., Garaialde, D., … & Cowan, B. R. (2023). The Partner Modelling Questionnaire: A validated self-report measure of perceptions toward machines as dialogue partners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07164.

Construct Summary

The authors report that the scale is designed to measure people’s partner models of non-embodied speech interfaces. The scale consists of three dimensions:

“[The first dimension is] perceived competence and dependability in communication, which stems from a focus on communicative attributes including but not limited to, competence, dependability, reliability, consistency and efficiency. The next dimension is human-likeness in communication, which stems from broad human-machine comparisons, perceptions of a system’s capacity for warmth and empathy, and how social-transactional interactions feel. Finally, the work identified perceived communicative flexibility as an important partner model dimension that stems from a concern with how flexible or spontaneous a system appears to be in dialogue, and its capacity for interpretation.” (p. 28)

Final Scale Items (18 total):

Response scale is semantic differential:

Competence and Dependability
Competent/Incompetent
Dependable/Unreliable
Capable/Incapable
Consistent/Inconsistent
Reliable/Uncertain
Expert/Amateur
Efficient/Inefficient
Precise/Vague
Cooperative/Uncooperative

Human-Likeness
Human-like/Machine-like
Life-like/Tool-like
Warm/Cold
Empathetic/Apathetic
Personal/Generic
Social/Transactional

Communicative Flexibility
Flexible/Inflexible
Interpretive/Literal
Spontaneous/Predetermined

Rating = 77%

Check? Guideline Item
✓ Is the construct defined?
✓ Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors?
✓ Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)?
✖ Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items?
✓ Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship?
✓ Did they describe how they determined number of factors?
✖ Did they report the full initial set of items?
✖ Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items?
✓ Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)?
✓ Did they list the final items included in the scale?
✓ Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)?
✓ Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported?
✓ Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported?

Comments None.


PDF of scale as well as instructions for administration and scoring are not readily available. Check the paper for more details or email hriscaledatabase@gmail.com submit this information if you are the author of this scale.

Reviewed by Experts ✓