Four layouts and a finding: The effects of changes in the order of the verbal labels and numerical values on Likert-type scales

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 17-27

  Hartley, James ^a   Betts, Lucy R ^b  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Electronic Mailing; Likert type scales; Questionnaires; Response formats; Structured abstracts

Indexed keywords

EID: 75849131848     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645570802648077     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Amoo, T., & Friedman, H.H. (2001). Do numeric values influence subjects' responses to rating scales? Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research, 26, 41-46.
2. Armitage, C., & Deeprose, C. (2004). Changing student evaluations by means of the numeric values of rating scales. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3, 122-125.
3. Armstrong, R.L. (1987). The midpoint on a five-point Likert-type scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 359-362.
4. Bendig, A.W. (1953). The reliability of self-ratings as a function of the amount of verbal anchoring and the number of categories on the scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 38-41.
5. Bendig, A.W. (1954). Reliability and the number of rating scale categories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 38-40.
6. Chen, C., Lee, S.Y., & Stevenson, H.W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170-175.
7. Christian, L.M., & Dillman, D.A. (2004). The influence of graphical and symbolic language manipulations on responses to self-administered questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 57-60.
8. Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R.L., & Thompson, B. (2001). Score reliability in web- or internet-based surveys: Unnumbered graphic rating scales versus Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 697-706.
9. Couper, M.P., Tourandeau, R., Conrad, F.G., & Singer, E. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales: A web experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 227-245.
10. Dawes, J. (2002). Five point vs eleven point scales: Does it make a difference to data characteristics? Australian Journal of Market Research, 10, 39-47.
11. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61-77.
12. Denscombe, M. (2008). Item non-response rates: A comparison of online and paper questionnaires. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. DOI: 10.1080/13645570802054706
13. Dillman, D., & Christian, L.M. (2005). Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods, 17, 30-52.
14. Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in survey response patterns. International Marketing Review, 24, 127-143.
15. Fowler, F.J., Roman, A.M., & Di, Z.X. (1998). Mode effects in a survey of Medicare prostate surgery patients. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 29-46.
16. French, D.P., & Hevey, D. (2008). What do people think about when answering questionnaires to assess unrealistic optimism about skin cancer? A think aloud study. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 13, 63-74.
17. Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J.H. (2006). Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 873-884.
18. Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
19. Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 368-371.
20. Hartley, J., & Betts, L.R. (2008). Revising and polishing a structured abstract: Is it worth the time and effort? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2335-2340.
21. Hartley, J., & Betts, L.R. (submitted). The effects of different sequences of numbers and verbal labels on children's scores on Likert-type scale.
22. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1-54.
23. Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 79-103.
24. Matell, M.S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of items for Likert-scale items? Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 506-509.
25. Nicholls, M.R., Orr, C.A., Okubo, M., & Loftus, A. (2006). Satisfaction guaranteed: The effect of spatial biases on responses to Likert scales. Psychological Science, 17, 1027-1028.
26. Nulty, D.D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 301-314.
27. Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiente, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increase prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
28. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: Open University Press.
29. 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, 570-582.
30. Sedlmeier, P. (2006). The role of scales in student ratings. Learning and Instruction, 16, 401-415.
31. Stewart, T.J., Roberts, E., Eleazer, P., Boland, R., & Wieland, D. (2006). Reliability and validity issues for two common measures of medical students' attitudes toward older adults. Educational Gerontology, 32, 409-421.
32. Thurstone, L.L., & Chave, E.J. (1929). The measurement of attitude. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
33. Toepoel, V., Das, M., & van Soest, A. (2006). Design of web questionnaires: The effect of layout in rating scales (Discussion Paper No. 2006-30, CentERdta). Tilberg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
34. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M.P., & Conrad, F. (2004). Spacing, position and order: Interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 368-393.
35. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M.P., & Conrad, F. (2007). Color, labels, and interpretive heuristics for response scales. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 91-112.
36. Van Laerhoven, H., Van der Zaag-Loonen, H., & Derks, B.H.F. (2004). A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatrica, 93, 830-835.
37. Weems, G.H., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Schreiber, J.B., & Eggers, S.J. (2003). Characteristics of respondents who respond differently to positively and negatively worded items on rating scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 587-607.
38. Wildt, A.R., & Mazis, M.B. (1978). Determinants of scale responses: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research, XV, 261-267.
39. Wyatt, R.C., & Meyers, L.S. (1987). Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 27-35.