A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point likert scales

Journal of Social Service Research

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 412-421

  Leung, Shing On ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MACAU   (Macao)

Author keywords

Interval scale; Likert scale; Normality; Reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960784266     PISSN: 01488376     EISSN: 15407314     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.580697     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Allen, E., & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64-65.
2. Borgers, N., Sikkel, D., & Hox, J. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral midpoint. Quality and Quantity, 38(1), 17-33.
3. 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(3), 205-215.
4. Chang, M. L. M. (2010). A correlational study between organizational citizenship and organizational justice among teachers in Macao (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Macau, Macau, China.
5. Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31-35.
6. Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality-of-life measurement. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). Kent Ridge, Singapore: National University of Singapore.
7. Freyd, M. (1923). The graphic rating scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 83-102.
8. Garland, R. (1991). The midpoint on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
9. Goldstein, G., & Hersen, M. (1984). Handbook of psychological assessment. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
10. Hart, M. C. (1996). Improving the discrimination of SERVQUALby usingmagnitude scaling. In G. K. Kanji (Ed.), Total quality management in action (pp. 267-270). London, England: Chapman and Hall.
11. Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. F. (2007). Phrase completion scales: A better measurement approach than Likert scales? Journal of Social Service Research, 34(4), 1-12.
12. Kislenko, K., & Grevholm, B. (2008, July). The Likert scale used in research on affect-A short discussion of terminology and appropriate analyzing methods. Paper presented in the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
13. Leung, S. O. (2009). Subjective social economic status of adolescence in Macau. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15, 145-153.
14. Leung, S. O., & Wong, P. M. (2008). Validity and reliability of ChineseRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. NewHorizons in Education, 56(1), 62-69.
15. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-53.
16. Parker, P. L., McDaniel, H. S., & Crumpton-Young, L. L. (2002). Do research participants give interval or ordinal answers in response to Likert scales? Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.19.6352&rep=rep1&type=pdf
17. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161.
18. Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38-66.
19. Wu, C.-H. (2007). An empirical study on the transformation of Likert-scale data to numerical scores. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 1(58), 2851-2862.
20. Wyatt, R. C., & Meyers, L. S. (1987). Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type response scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), 27-35.