評価グリッド法・レパートリーグリッド法・定型自由記述の説明力比較

 Customer's needs and satisfaction research are very popular in the field of marketing. These kinds of research have gradually come to be conducted in the field of architecture. There are many research methods, but the differences between these research methods are not explained sufficiently in the field of architecture. Today, doing research is conducted not only by experts, but also by general companies and private individuals. Therefore, we need to explain the differences between each research method and make it easier to use.<br> This study's focus is on three research methods: evaluation grid method, repertory grid method, or triadic procedure technique, and typical free description. Evaluation grid method was formed in the field of architecture in Japan in 1986. It was developed by repertory grid method. Evaluation grid method is very popular now and used not only in the field of architecture, but also in the field of marketing. Repertory grid method is used in the field of clinical psychology. Repertory grid method has variety of styles but in this study we choose triadic procedure technique to conduct research. Typical free description is used in many fields.<br> In order to explain the differences between these three methods, we set two subjects. First, to explain the differences of usability, a comparison on the interpretability of the three research methods was conducted. Second, the classification on the tendency of extracted evaluation terms from the three research methods was conducted to understand the tendency of extracted evaluation terms of these methods. Comparison the differences between the three methods was evaluated by using the same elements in each research method. The elements consist of 26 different illustrations of living rooms.<br> This research has three steps. First, do comprehensive evaluation in five grade scores. Second, do evaluation in each of the three research methods. Third, conduct an evaluation with individual scales method in each interviewee. In the third step we make an evaluation sheet for every interviewee. Except for the second step this research is in the same process and the data of the three methods can be compared. We get 614 evaluation terms from evaluation grid method, 430 evaluation terms from triadic procedure technique and 970 evaluation terms from typical free description.<br> To see the relation between individual scales and comprehensive evaluation, we used individual scales as qualitative variable to get correlation ratio and used individual scales as quantitative variable to get correlation coefficient. To explain an interpretability of each research method for comprehensive evaluation, we used correlation ratio. The result shows that evaluation grid method is the biggest in the three methods. However, it cannot get the differences between triadic procedure technique and typical free description. In order to know more particularly, it is necessary to classify the extracting evaluation terms of these three methods. To classify every extracting evaluation terms it is necessary to think of individual scales for comprehensive evaluation to factorial effect. There are 6 patterns: one-dimensional quality, attractive quality, must-be quality, more attractive quality, unsatisfied quality and indifference quality. The result shows that evaluation grid method has many one-dimensional, attractive and must-be quality. Triadic procedure technique has many more attractive and unsatisfied quality. Typical free description has a lot of indifference quality.<br> From this study it can be explained that evaluation grid method has high interpretability, triadic procedure technique has moderate interpretability and typical free description has low interpretability.