Phrase completion scales: A better measurement approach than Likert scales?

Journal of Social Service Research

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 1-12

  Hodge, David R ^a,b,d   Gillespie, David F ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS   (United States)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Index construction; Likert scales; Measurement; Phrase completion scales; Survey research

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548500349     PISSN: 01488376     EISSN: 15407314     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J079v33n04_01     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: An alternative version. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 331-348.
2. Allport, G. W., & Ross, M, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.
3. Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.
4. Bamette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 361-370.
5. Bemal, H., Wooley, S., & Schensul, J. J. (1997). The challenge of using Likert-type scales with low-literate ethnic populations. Nursing Research, 46(3), 179-181.
6. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
7. Brody, C. J., & Dietz, J. (1997). On the dimensionality of two-question format Likert attitude scales. Social Science Research, 26(2), 197-204.
8. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with lisrel, prelis, and simplis: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Canda, E. R. (2005). Integrating religion and social work in dual degree programs. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work, 24(1/2), 79-91.
10. Carr, S. C., Munro, D., & Bishop, G. D. (1995). Attitude assessment in non-western countries: Critical modifications to Likert scaling. Psychologia, 39(1), 55-59.
11. Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Presented at the Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93), Singapore: National University of Singapore.
12. Derezotes, D. S. (2006). Spiritually oriented socialwork practice. Boston: Pearson.
13. Duncan, D., & Stenbeck, M. (1987). Are Likert scales unidimensional? Social Science Research, 16(3), 245-259.
14. Flaskemd, J. H. (1988). Is the Likert scale format culturally biased? Nursing Research, 57(3), 185-186.
15. Garg, R. K. (1996). The influence of positive and negative wording and issue involvement on responses to Likert scales in marketing research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 38(3), 235-256.
16. Genia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport-Ross I/E scales in a religiously heterogeneous sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(3), 284-290.
17. Gibbs, H. W., & Achterberg, L. J. (1978). Spiritual values and death anxiety: Implications for counseling with terminal cancer patients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25(6), 563-569.
18. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275.
19. Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (Editors) (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
20. Hodge, D. R. (2006). Spiritually modified cognitive therapy: A review of the literature. Social Work, 51(2), 157-166.
21. Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. F. (2005). Phrase completion scales. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 3, pp. 53-62). San Diego: Academic Press.
22. Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase Completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), 45-55.
23. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Idler, E. (1999). Values. In Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research (25-29). John E. Fetzer Intitute. Retrieved 8/7/03, from http://www.fetzer.org/resources/ FETZER_BOOK.pdf.
25. Jones, M. S. (2000). Residual meaning and the implications of misquantifying ordinal levels of measurement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Sociology.
26. Joreskog, K. G. (1990). New developments in LISREL: Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality & Quantity, 24, 387-404.
27. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. De Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz et al. (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 141-164). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
30. Lee, J. W., Jones, P. S., Mineyama, Y., & Zhang, X. E. (2002). Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 25(4), 295-306.
31. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
32. Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., van Hoof, A., Hart, H. T., Verbogt, T. F. M. A., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2000). Adolescents' midpoint response on Likert-type scale items: Neutral or missing values? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(2), 208-216.
33. Roberson, P. K., Shema, S. J., Mundfrom, D. J., & Holmes, T. M. (1995). Analysis of paired Likert data: How to evaluate change and preference questions. Family Medicine, 27(10), 671-675.
34. Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the likert and thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 211-233.
35. Roberts, J. (1999). Heart and soul. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Spiritual resources in family therapy (pp. 256-271). New York: Guilford Press.
36. Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336-342.
37. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Schwarz, N., Knauper, B., Hippler, H.-J., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 570-582.
39. Spalding, A. D., & Metz, G. J. (1997). Spirituality and quality of life in alcoholics anonymous. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 15(1), 1-14.
40. Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424.
41. Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 223-252). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Wandzilak, T., Ansorge, C. J., & Potter, G. (1987). Utilizing "undecided" option with Likert items: Associated measurement problems. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 18(1), 51-58.
43. Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 72-91.