Studies in plant pathology, agronomy, and plant breeding requiring disease severity assessment often use quantitative ordinal scales (i.e., a special type of ordinal scale that uses defined numeric ranges); a frequently used example of such a scale is the Horsfall-Barratt scale. Parametric proportional odds models (POMs) may be used to analyze the ratings obtained from quantitative ordinal scales directly, without converting ratings to percent area affected using range midpoints of such scales (currently a standard procedure). Our aim was to evaluate the performance of the POM for comparing treatments using ordinal estimates of disease severity relative to two alternatives, the midpoint conversions (MCs) and nearest percent estimates (NPEs). A simulation method was implemented and the parameters of the simulation estimated using actual disease severity data from the field. The criterion for comparison of the three approaches was the power of the hypothesis test (the probability to reject the null hypothesis when it is false). Most often, NPEs had superior performance. The performance of the POM was never inferior to using the MC at severity <40%. Especially at low disease severity (≤10%), the POM was superior to using the MC method. Thus, for early onset of disease or for comparing treatments with severities <40%, the POM is preferable for analyzing disease severity data based on quantitative ordinal scales when comparing treatments and at severities >40% is equivalent to other methods.
Keywords: disease control and pest management; ecology and epidemiology.