Categorizing A Wine Rating Scale: 2, 3, 4, or More: Is There One We Should Go For?

Dom Cicchetti¹, Arnie Cicchetti^2
(1. Department of Biometry, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA; 2. San Anselmo, CA 94960, USA)

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to provide criteria for selecting wine scales that are not only useful for researchers, as well as the wine trade, but also for the everyday consumer. In discussing the relative merits and flaws of each of the wine scales, we have stressed that because of the relative nature of this endeavor, we must remain flexible. There are no absolutes. Variability not only exists in a wine, a living organism, but also among the most experienced tasters. We present the findings of an earlier Monte Carlo study of the relationship between the number of categories or scale points and a given scale’s level of inter-rater agreement. It has been demonstrated empirically that reliability increases dramatically from 2 to 3 scale points, and continues to increase linearly up to 7 scale points, where a leveling off occurs, such that no appreciable levels of reliability occur with increases in scale points, even when they reach as many as 100 (Cicchetti, Showalter, & Tyrer, 1985). Applying these results to the selection of wine rating scales, we would eschew the 3 category whimsical 3 Stooges scale, with its categories defined by fantasized Moe, Larry, and Curly wine descriptors. As given in earlier research, we offer a rationale for choosing the Winespider Evaluation System, developed by the Australian artist, Nick Chlebnikowski, as our “gold standard” for the most reliable and valid extant wine rating scale (www.winespider.com) Cicchetti & Cicchetti (2009).

Key word: wine rating scales

JEL code: C020