Does one size fit all? The suitability of answer formats for different constructs measured

Australasian Marketing Journal

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 58-64

  Dolnicar, Sara ^a   Grün, Bettina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^b VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

Author keywords

Answer formats; Binary; Marketing measurement; Ordinal; User friendliness

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049096295     PISSN: 14413582     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bendig A.W. Reliability and the number of rating scale categories. Journal of Applied Psychology 38 (1954) 38-40
2. Cooper D., and Schindler P. Marketing Research (2006), McGraw-Hill/Irwin
3. Cox E.P. The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (1980) 407-422
4. Dolnicar, S., 2003. Simplifying three-way questionnaires - Do the advantages of binary answer categories compensate for the loss of information? In: ANZMAC CD Proceedings.
5. Dolnicar S., and Grün B. How constrained a response: a comparison of binary, ordinal and metric answer formats. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 108-122
6. Dolnicar, S., Grün, B., Leisch, F., 2004. Time efficient brand image measurement - Is binary format sufficient to gain the market insight required? In: CD Proceedings of the 33rd EMAC Conference.
7. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., and Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000) 425-442
8. Finn R.H. Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32 (1972) 255-265
9. Green P.E., and Rao V.R. Rating scales and information recovery-how many scales and response categories to use. Journal of Marketing 34 (1970) 33-39
10. Hancock G.R., and Klockars A.J. The effect of scale manipulations on validity: targeting frequency rating scales for anticipated performance levels. Applied Ergonomics 22 (1991) 147-154
11. Hartigan J.A., and Wong M.A. Algorithm AS 136: a K-means clustering algorithm. Applied Statistics 28 (1979) 100-108
12. Jacoby J., and Matell M.S. Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research 8 (1971) 495-500
13. Jones, R.R., 1968. Differences in response consistency and subjects' preferences for three personality inventory response formats. In: Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, pp. 247-248.
14. Kampen J., and Swyngedouw M. The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality and Quantity 34 (2000) 87-102
15. Komorita S.S. Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale. Journal of Social Psychology 61 (1963) 327-334
16. Komorita S.S., and Graham W.K. Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 25 (1965) 987-995
17. Lehmann D.R., and Hulbert J. Are three point scales always good enough?. Journal of Marketing Research 9 (1972) 444-446
18. Leisch R. A toolbox for k-centroids cluster analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 51 (2006) 526-544
19. Loken B., Pirie P., Virnig K.A., Hinkle R.L., and Salmon C.T. The use of 0-10 scales in telephone surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society 29 (1987) 353-362
20. Martin W.S., Fruchter B., and Mathis W.J. An investigation of the effect of the number of scale intervals on principal components factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34 (1974) 537-545
21. Matell M.S., and Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 31 (1971) 657-674
22. Nunnally J.C. Psychometric Theory. first ed. (1967), McGraw-Hill, New York
23. Oaster T.R.F. Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills 68 (1989) 549-550
24. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson J.P., Shaver P.R., and Wrightsman L.S. (Eds). Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (1991), Academic Press, San Diego 17-59
25. Peabody D. Three components in bipolar scales: direction and extremeness. Psychological Review 69 (1962) 65-73
26. Percy L. An argument in support of ordinary factor analysis of dichotomous variables. In: Anderson B. (Ed). Advances in Consumer Research (1976), Association for Consumer Research 143-148
27. Preston C.C., and Colman A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 104 (2000) 1-15
28. Ramsay J.O. The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika 37 (1973) 513-532
29. R Development Core Team, 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL: .
30. Remington M., Tyrer P.J., Newson-Smith J., and Cicchetti D.V. Comparative reliability of categorical and analogue rating scales in the assessment of psychiatric symptomatology. Psychological Medicine 9 (1979) 765-770
31. Symonds P.M. On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology 7 (1924) 456-461
32. Van der Eijk C. Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity 35 (2001) 325-341