The question as to whether the format of a scale influences results has been examined infrequently and with conflicting answers. Two Likert-type formats, one with all choice points defined and the other with only end-points defined, were administered to 121 subjects. Each subject completed half of the items in the defined and the other half in the end-defined condition. Results were not significantly different between forms, nor did subjects indicate a format preference. Although the end-defined items exhibited greater variability than did the every-point defined items, the results suggest that minor Likert-type format changes do not critically affect outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barrett, R. S. , Taylor, E. K., Parker, J. W., and Martens, W. L. (1958). Rating scale content: I. Scale information and supervisory ratings. Personnel Psychology, 11, 333-346.
2.
Blumberg, H. H. , DeSoto, C. B., and Kuethe, J. L. (1966). Evaluation of rating scale formats. Personnel Psychology, 19, 243-259.
3.
Cliff, N.Adverbs as multipliers . (1959). Psychological Review, 66, 27-44.
4.
Danis, S. G. (1974). The effect of attitude and scale format on polarization in social judgments. Dissertation, University of Georgia.
5.
Finn, R. H. (1972). Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 255-265.
6.
Huck, S. W. and Jacko, E. J. (1974). Effect of varying the response format of the Alpert-Haber Achievement Anxiety Text. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 159-163.
7.
Jacoby, J. and Matell, M. S. (1971). Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 495-500.
8.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 152.
9.
Lissitz, R. W. and Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10-13.
10.
Madden, J. M. (1960). A comparison of three methods of rating scale construction. USAF, WADD Personnel Lab. Tech. Note 60: 262.
11.
Madden, J. M. and Bourdon, R. D. (1964). Effects of variations in rating scale format on judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 147-151.
12.
Matell, M. S. and Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study 1: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674.
13.
Peters, L. and McCormick, J. (1966). Comparative reliability of numerically anchored versus job-task anchored rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 92-96.
14.
Ramsay, J. O. (1973). The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika, 38, 513-529.
15.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1.
16.
Schutz, H. G. and Rucker, M. H. (1975). A comparison of variable configurations across scale lengths: An empirical study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 319-324.
17.
Taylor, E. K. , Parker, J. W., and Ford, G. L. (1959). Rating scale content: IV. Predictability of structured and unstructured scales. Personnel Psychology, 12, 247-266.
18.
Towne, D. C. (1967). Influences exerted upon subject responses by the response scale structured elements of attitude scales. Dissertation, Cornell University.
19.
Wells, W. D. and Smith, G. (1960). Four semantic rating scales compared. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 393-397.
