Stuck in the middle: The use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires

Journal of General Psychology

Volumn 142, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 71-89

  Nadler, Joel T ^a   Weston, Rebecca ^b   Voyles, Elora C ^c  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^c NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Likert scales; measurement; mid points; questionnaires; surveys

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMETRICS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84926433856     PISSN: 00221309     EISSN: 19400888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221309.2014.994590     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baka, A., Figgou, L., & Triga, V. (2012). "Neither agree, nor disagree": A critical analysis of the middle answer category in Voting Advice Applications. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(3), 244-263.
2. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:Multivariate Software Inc.
3. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, methods, and practices. Tampa, FL: Scholar Commons.
4. Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220-232.
5. 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, 205-214. doi: 10.1177/014662169401800302.
6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Abingdon: Routledge.
7. Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. Cox, E. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives in a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
9. 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, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). Singapore: National University of Singapore.
10. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61-77.
11. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
12. Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5, 104-110.
13. Francis, J. D., & Busch, L. (1975). What we now know about "I don't knows." The Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 207-218.
14. Garland, R. (1991). The midpoint on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
15. Greenleaf, E. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 328-351.
16. Johnson, T., & Fendrich, M. (2002, May). A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, FL.
17. Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. Statistician, 29, 65-78.
18. King, M., & Bruner, G. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 79-103.
19. King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Association, 95, 49-69.
20. Lam, T., Allen, G., & Green, K. (2010, May). Is "neutral" on a Likert scale the same as "Don't know" for informed and uninformed respondents? Effects of serial position and labeling on selection of response options. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO.
21. Leigh, J. H., & Martin, Jr., C. R. (1987). "Don't know" item nonresponse in a telephone survey: Effects of question form and respondent characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 418-424.
22. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
23. Likert, R., & Hayes, S. P. (1961). Some applications of behavioural research. Paris, France: Unesco.
24. Lissitz, R.W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10-13.
25. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likertscale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506.
26. Nadler, J.T., Will, K., Lowery, M. R., & Smith, K. (2012). Don't ask, don't tell and other LGB civil rights issues: Effects of terminology on public opinion. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 24, 331-345.
27. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
28. Oaster, T. R. F. (1989). Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 549-550.
29. Pemberton, E. (1933). A technique for measuring the optimum rating scale for opinion measures. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 470-472.
30. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
31. Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods of testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
32. Raaijmakers, Q. A., van Hoof, J. T. C., Verbogt, T. F.M. A., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2000). Adolescents' midpoint responses on Likert-type scale items: neutral or missing values? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(2), 208-216.
33. Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 5). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
34. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. London, UK: Sage Publications.
35. Shrout, P. E., & Lane, S. P. (2012). Psychometrics. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 302-320). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36. Toner, B. (1987). The impact of agreement bias on the ranking of questionnaire response. Social Psychology, 127, 221-222.
37. Velez, P., & Ashworth, S. D. (2007). The impact of item readability on the endorsement of the midpoint response in surveys. Survey Research Method, 1, 69-74.
38. Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 166-176.
39. Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236-247.
40. Willits, F. K., & Janota, J. (1996, August). A matter of order: Effects of response order on answers to surveys. Paper presented at Rural Sociological Society, Des Moines, IA.
41. Worcester, R. M., & Burns, T. R. (1975). A statistical examination of the relative precision of verbal scales. Journal of the Market Research Society, 17, 181-197.
42. Zikmund, W., & Babin, B. (2012). Essentials of marketing research. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.