Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2010.34.6.913

The Influence of Likert Scale Format on Response Result, Validity, and Reliability of Scale -Using Scales Measuring Economic Shopping Orientation-  

Kim, Sae-Hee (Div. of Fashion & Beauty, Busan Kyungsang College)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles / v.34, no.6, 2010 , pp. 913-927 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of Likert scale formats such as the number of response categories and the inclusion of a mid-point from a methodological point of view using instruments that measure a fashionmarketing-related subject. Using a self-administered questionnaire, 201 respondents rated their economic clothing shopping orientation on three formats of scales that differed only in the number of response categories (ranging from 5 to 7) from February 8 to February 12, 2010. Descriptive statistics, Spearman's rank order correlation, t-test, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson's correlation, and Cronbach's alpha were used in the analysis. The results are as follows. First, three scale formats were generally suitable for use due to validity and reliability. Second, the response results varied with the number of categories and the inclusion of a mid-point, although the differences were statistically insignificant (with only a few cases that differed). Third, construct validity was more secure in scales with fewer categories, whereas convergent and discriminant validity was generally good in all scale formats. Fourth, reliability coefficients were higher in scales with more categories. Fifth, the number of categories was of greater importance to instrument design than the inclusion of a mid-point. Implications for appropriate scale designs are suggested in this study.
Keywords
Likert scale; Number of response categories; Mid-point category; Validity; Reliability;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Schutz, H. G., & Rucker, M. H. (1975). A comparison of variable configurations across scale lengths: An empirical study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 319-324.   DOI
2 Jenkins, G, & Taber, T. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 392-398.   DOI
3 Friedman, H. H., Wilamowsky, Y., & Friedman, L. W. (1981). A comparison of balanced and unbalanced rating scales. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 19(2), 1-7.
4 Remmers, H. H., & Ewart, E. (1941). Reliability of multiple choice measuring instruments as a function of the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 61-66.   DOI
5 Clarke, III. I. (2000). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15(1), 137-152.
6 Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point liken-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205-215.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Lozano, L. M., Garcia-Cueto, E., & Muniz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(2), 73-79.   DOI
8 Mckelvie, S. J. (1978). Graphic rating scales: How many categories? British Journal of Psychology, 69, 185-202.   DOI
9 Converse, J., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
10 Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1970). Rating scales and information recovery: How many scales and response categories to use? Journal of Marketing, 34, 33-39.
11 Chae, S. (2005). Social research method and analysis (3rd ed.). Seoul: B&M Books.
12 Cox, E. P. III. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scales: A review. Journal of Marketing Rsearch, 17, 407-422   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point, and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-77.   DOI
14 Brown, G, Wilding, R. E. II., & Coulter, R. L. (1991). Customer evaluation of retail salespeople using the SOCO scale: A replication, extension, and application. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9, 347-351.
15 Son, Y., & Chae, S. (2008). Systematic questionnaire design (2nd ed.). Seoul: B&M Books.
16 Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170-175.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Andrews, F.M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 409-442.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Bae, J. (2002). An analysis of the validity and reliability about the utility of the neutral point response category on a likert scale. Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
19 Boote, A. S. (1981). Reliability testing of psychographic scales: Five-point or seven-point? Anchored or labeled? Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 53-60.
20 Alwin, D. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better? Sociological Methods & Research, 25(3), 318-340.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Stone, M. H. (2004). Substantive scale construction. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to rasch measurement (pp. 201-225). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
22 Wildt, A. R., & Mazis, M. B. (1978). Determinants of scale response: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research. 15, 261-267.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Saris, W. E. (1988). Variation in response functions: A source of measurement error in attitude research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.
24 Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(4), 343-364.   DOI
25 Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Ramsay, J. O. (1973). The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika, 38, 513-533.   DOI
27 Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 251-259.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for likert scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506-509.   DOI
29 Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30 Peabody, D. (1962). Two components in bipolar scales: Direction and extremeness. Psychological Review. 69, 65-73.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10-13.   DOI
32 Loken, B., Pirie, P., Virnig, K. A., Hinkle, R. L., & Salmon, C. T. (1987). The use of 0-10 scales in telephone surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 29(3), 353-362.
33 Komorita, S. S. (1963). Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a likert scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 61(December), 327-334.   DOI
34 Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for likert scales items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674.   DOI
35 Kim, N. (2001). A comparative analysis of items election methods for developing the likert scale. Unpublished master's thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul.
36 Kim, S., & Rhee, E. (2004). Development of measurement scale for clothing shopping orientation (Part I). Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 28(9/10), 1253-1264.   과학기술학회마을
37 Hofacker, C. F. (1984). Categorical judgment scaling with ordinal assumptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 91-106.   DOI
38 Komorita, S. S., & Graham, W. K. (1965). Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 987-995.   DOI
39 Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40 Hancock, G. R., & Klockars, A. J. (1991). The effect of scale manipulations on validity: Targeting frequency rating scales for anticipated performance levels. Applied Ergonomics, 22, 147-154.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Jacoby, J., & Matell, M. S. (1971). Three-point scales always good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 495-500.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Finn, R. H. (1972). Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 255-265.   DOI
43 Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletine, 2, 66-70.
44 Garner, W. R. (1960). Rating scales, discriminability, and information transmission. The Psychological Review, 67, 342-352.