The Q-Sort methodology has been used to study participants’ subjective views on various topics (Brown, 1996). The task has historically been completed by manually sorting cards into
categories that force responses into a normal distribution (Brown, 1996). Data
collection using this method is time consuming and manual data entry is prone to human error. We describe here QMethod Software –
a computerized web-based application that allows participants to sort and record their responses online. This online application
eliminates the need for researchers to attend the study sessions and to manually enter data. QMethod Software described here is
currently being used in both applied and cognitive psychology studies, including a clinical study that evaluates participants’
perception of behaviours seen as most characteristic or most uncharacteristic of psychological aggression or coercive control in
situations of intimate partner violence. In a health psychology study, it is being used to examine people’s perceptions of food
allergy, and in a psycholinguistics lab it was used to evaluate the affective valence, abstractness, and semantic richness ratings
of words. We will show here that the data obtained from one of these psycholinguistic studies (abstractness/concreteness)
correlates highly with existing measures (Brysbaert, Warriner & Kuperman, 2014)
thus demonstrating that the Q-sort methodology and this particular implementation, the QMethod Software app, reproduces more
typical evaluations/assessments in the psycholinguistics literature.
(2012) Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Social Science & Medicine, 74(7), 997–1004.
Alberts, K., & Ankenmann, B.
(2001) Simulating Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlations in Q-Sorts Using Excel. Social Science Computer Review, 191, 221–226.
Barker, J.
(2008) Q-methodology: An alternative approach to research in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 281, 917–925.
Brown, S.
(1996) Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 61, 561–567.
Block, J.
(1961) The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Block, J.
(2008) The Q-sort in character appraisal: Encoding subjective impressions of persons quantitatively. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A., & Kuperman, V.
(2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 461, 904–911.
Davies, Mark
(2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Retrieved from [URL]
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.
(2018) Perfectionism in past and present anorexia nervosa. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 671–690.
Goodrich, M.
(2016) Exploring School Counselors’ Motivations to Work with Lgbtqqi Students in Schools: A Q Methodology Study. Professional School Counseling 2016, 21(1a).
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.
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.
Serfass, D., & Sherman, R.
(2013) A methodological note on ordered Q-Sort ratings. Journal Of Research In Personality, 47(6), 853–858.
Snefjella, B., Généreux, M., & Kuperman, V.
(2018) Historical evolution of concrete and abstract language revisited. Behavior Research Methods.
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.
Yarar, N., & Orth, U. R.
(2018) Consumer lay theories on healthy nutrition: A Q methodology application in Germany. Appetite, 1201(Complete), 145–157.
Cited by
Cited by 14 other publications
Alanazi, Ahmed S., Heather Wharrad, Fiona Moffatt, Michael Taylor & Muhammad Ladan
2021. Q Methodology in the COVID-19 Era. Healthcare 9:11 ► pp. 1491 ff.
2020. Diverse Perceptions on Eco-Certification for Shrimp Aquaculture in Indonesia. Sustainability 12:22 ► pp. 9387 ff.
Burak, Durmuş & Ahmet Simsar
2022. THE PREFERRED MENTORING ATTRIBUTES AND PRACTICES FOR EFFECTIVE SCIENCE TEACHING. Journal of Baltic Science Education 21:1 ► pp. 7 ff.
Bučková, Hana & Jiří Dostál
2020. Kurikulum informatiky a digitálních technologií z pohledu učitelů 2. stupně základních škol,
Calaguas, Noriel P.
2022. Divergent Perspectives of Filipino PLWH, Their Partners, and Care Providers on Sexuality After an HIV Diagnosis: A Q-Methodological Analysis. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care Publish Ahead of Print
Du, Xiangyun & Adrian Lundberg
2021. Examining emic viewpoints on a pedagogical development program’s long-term effects using Q methodology. Studies in Educational Evaluation 71 ► pp. 101088 ff.
Du, Xiangyun, Adrian Lundberg, Mohamed A. Ayari, Khalid K. Naji & Alaa Hawari
2022. Examining engineering students' perceptions of learner agency enactment in problem‐ and project‐based learning using Q methodology. Journal of Engineering Education 111:1 ► pp. 111 ff.
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 27:3/4 ► pp. 316 ff.
Heath, Abigail & Matthew Cotton
2022. Responsibility, engagement, and policy strategy for ocean plastic waste management: a Q-method study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management► pp. 1 ff.
Johnson, Malcolm S., Vanessa M. Adams, Jason Byrne & Rebecca M. B. Harris
2022. The benefits of Q + PPGIS for coupled human-natural systems research: A systematic review. Ambio
Migchelbrink, Koen & Steven Van de Walle
2022. Serving Multiple Masters? Public Managers’ Role Perceptions in Participatory Budgeting. Administration & Society 54:3 ► pp. 339 ff.
Nelson, Laura K., Molly Bogeberg, Alison Cullen, Laura E. Koehn, Astrea Strawn & Phillip S. Levin
2022. Perspectives on managing fisheries for community wellbeing in the face of climate change. Maritime Studies
Van den Branden, Laura, Natacha Van de Craen, Luka Van Leugenhaege, Eveline Mestdagh, Olaf Timmermans, Bart Van Rompaey & Yvonne J Kuipers
2022. Flemish midwives’ perspectives on supporting women during the transition to motherhood – A Q-methodology study. Midwifery 105 ► pp. 103213 ff.
Wu, Peng & Yanyan Wang
2021. Investigating Business English Teachers’ Belief About Online Assessment: Q Methodology Conducted During COVID-19 Period. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 30:6 ► pp. 621 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. 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.