The comment I was replying to was not about ordinal data and I stand by it in its context.<p>But on your point, the Jury&#x27;s still out on what to do with Likert-type data like this. Purists do say that it&#x27;s ordinal and therefore you can&#x27;t do any numeric analysis on it, but practically speaking you can learn a lot from it by treating it as interval data.<p>In my opinion, statistical analysis like this is ALWAYS two parts speculation and one part science (if you&#x27;re lucky). It&#x27;s designed to give insight without declaring fact so you&#x27;re allowed to bend the rules a little if it&#x27;s in the spirit of the math.<p>My &quot;gut&quot; feeling agrees with the original post. If we treat the data as ordinal data, then we can only look at the accuracy, and 44% is, if anything, more compelling.<p>Cards on the table: I was involved in analyzing the data in the first place and have a vested interest in things-- but I am saying what I believe without any intentional bias.