Article published in:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 14:3 (2019) ► pp. 415423


Ahmed, S., Bryant, L., Tizro, Z., & Shickle, D.
(2012) Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Social Science & Medicine, 74(7), 997–1004. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 422 ]
Alberts, K., & Ankenmann, B.
(2001) Simulating Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlations in Q-Sorts Using Excel. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 221–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J.
(2008) Q-methodology: An alternative approach to research in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 28, 917–925. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S.
(1996) Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 561–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Block, J.
(1961) The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) The Q-sort in character appraisal: Encoding subjective impressions of persons quantitatively. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A., & Kuperman, V.
(2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
(2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Retrieved from http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha/
Freberg, K., Lutfallah, S., Saling, K., & Freberg, L.
(2019) What Makes an Influencer Influential? Using the California Q-sort to Predict Social Media Influence. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Ghandour, B., Madison Donner, Zoe Ross-Nash, Maryn Hayward, Madalyn Pinto, & Tara DeAngelis
(2018) Perfectionism in past and present anorexia nervosa. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 671–690.Google Scholar
Goodrich, M.
(2016) Exploring School Counselors’ Motivations to Work with Lgbtqqi Students in Schools: A Q Methodology Study. Professional School Counseling 2016, 21(1a). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ho, G. W. K.
(2017) Examining perceptions and attitudes: A review of Likert-type scales versus Q-methodology. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 674–689. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Correa, J. C., Sakarkar, G., Ngo, G., Ruiz-Fernández, S., Butcher, N., & Yamada, Y.
(2017) Placing joy, surprise and sadness in space: A cross-linguistic study. Psychological Research, 81(4), 750–763. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Serfass, D., & Sherman, R.
(2013) A methodological note on ordered Q-Sort ratings. Journal Of Research In Personality, 47(6), 853–858. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snefjella, B., Généreux, M., & Kuperman, V.
(2018) Historical evolution of concrete and abstract language revisited. Behavior Research Methods. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warriner, A., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M.
(2013) Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yarar, N., & Orth, U. R.
(2018) Consumer lay theories on healthy nutrition: A Q methodology application in Germany. Appetite, 120(Complete), 145–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 423 ]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Azizah, Fahma Fiqhiyyah Nur, Hiroe Ishihara, Aiora Zabala, Yutaro Sakai, Gede Suantika & Nobuyuki Yagi
2020. Diverse Perceptions on Eco-Certification for Shrimp Aquaculture in Indonesia. Sustainability 12:22  pp. 9387 ff. Crossref logo
Dussart, Pascal, Lise A. van Oortmerssen & Bé Albronda
2021. Perspectives on knowledge integration in cross-functional teams in information systems development. Team Performance Management: An International Journal ahead-of-print:ahead-of-print Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.