(1)評定尺度よる評定値は, その尺度の各目盛が, 一義的に客観的に規定されていない限り, 尺度の目盛の絶対値が意味があるのではなく, 二以上の評定値相互の相対的段階的関係こそ意味があるのであること。(2)しかしながら, そのような相対的な段階を区切るについては, 目下のところ, 如何なる方法が最も妥当であるかは, 断定できないこと。(3)段階相互の一致, 不一致は, それぞれの極限においてこそ最も明らかであろうから, 価値基準の一致, 不一致はそのようなものを手掛りに行うべきであること。(4)また, 附け加えたいのは, ここに用いたような材料についての価値評定は, 専門家の価値基準との一致, 不一致を問題としているのではないことを注意したい。問題は, 評定の結果からする, 評定者または評定者群相互の比較に問題が限られているのである。

Regarding that the essential quality of the rating score kept by the rating scale indicates only a relative condition in the relation of objects gradation, I scrutinize by means of ratinng of personality traits : (1) That concerning the rating score kept by the rating scale, in so far as gradation of the scale is not objectively laid down, is no significance in the absolute score by that scale, but in the very relationship between grades in two rating scores or more. (2) However, that no one can at present resolve what method is most adequate to distinguish such relative gradations. (3) That the coincidence or the difference between these gradations may be most explicitly seen in the utmost score of each grade. Therefore, the coincidence or the difference in the standard of value #has to be considered by making a clue of the above thing. (4) And that it is to be noticed that the valuation on such a material as used here has no reference to the coincidence or the difference in any standard of value from the point of view of experts. The problem is here limited in the comparison, resutling from rating, between subjects or groups of subject.