Effects of response order on Likert-type scales

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 908-924

  Weng, Li Jen ^a   Cheng, Chung Ping ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034339657     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00131640021970989     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Belson, W. A. (1966). The effects of reversing the presentation order of verbal rating scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 6, 30-37.
2. Bendig, A. W. (1954). Reliability and the number of rating scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25, 323-331.
3. Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E.J.C. (1995). EQS for windows users' guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
4. Champney, H., & Marshall, H. (1939). Optimal refinement of the rating scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 323-331.
5. Chan, C. (1986). Grade, sex role, relationship orientation, and empathy. Unpublished master's thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
6. Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 531-540.
7. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 205-215.
8. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
9. French-Lazovik, G., & Gibson, C. L. (1984). Effects of verbally labeled anchor points on the distributional parameters of rating measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 49-57.
10. Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Arbet, S. (1994). Effects of number and type of response choices on internal consistency reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 928-930.
11. 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.
12. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
13. Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Taber, T. D. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 392-398.
14. Johnson, J. D. (1981). Effects of the order of presentation of evaluative dimensions for bipolar scales in four societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 21-27.
15. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
16. Klockars, A. J., & Hancock, G. R. (1993). Manipulations of evaluative rating scale to increase validity. Psychological Report, 73, 1059-1066.
17. Klockars, A. J., & Yamagishi, M. (1988). The influence of labels and positions in rating scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 85-96.
18. Komorita, S. S., & Graham, W. K. (1965). Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 15, 987-995.
19. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-219.
20. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1988). A test of the form-resistant correlation hypothesis: Ratings, rankings, and the measurement of values. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 526-538.
21. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 5-55.
22. Likert, R., Roslow, S., & Murphy, G. (1934). A simplified and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 228-238.
23. Likert, R., Roslow, S., & Murphy, G. (1993). A simplified and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. Personnel Psychology, 46, 689-690.
24. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674.
25. Mathews, C. O. (1927). The effect of position of children's answers to questions in two-response types of tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 445-457.
26. Mathews, C. O. (1929). The effect of the printed response words on an interest questionnaire. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 128-134.
27. McClendon, M. J. (1986). Response-order effects for dichotomous questions. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 205-211.
28. Newstead, S. E., & Arnold, J. ( 1989). The effect of response format on ratings of teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 33-43.
29. Spector, P. E. (1976). Choosing response categories for summated rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 374-375.
30. Weng, L.-J., & Cheng, C.-P. (1996). On incremental fit indexes and estimation methods in structural equation modeling. Survey Research, 2, 89-109.
31. Weng, L.-J., & Cheng, C.-P. (1997). Why might relative fit indices differ between estimators? Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 121-128.
32. Wildt, A. R., & Mazis, M. B. (1978). Determinants of scale response: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 261-267.
33. Wong, C.-S., Tam, K.-C., Fung, M.-Y., & Wan, K. (1993). Differences between odd and even number of response scale: Some empirical evidence. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 35, 75-86.