An experiment is reported in which students rated the effectiveness of their lecturers by using three different types of response format. No differences were found between a scale in which all the points were verbally labelled and one in which only the end points were labelled. However a third scale, in which each point was given a precise percentage label, differed from the other two, and proved to give a more nearly accurate measure of the performance being rated. It is concluded that such percentage scales should be used wherever possible, although they may be inappropriate for some groups of subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bass, B. M. , Cascio, W. F., and O'Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 313-320.
2.
Blumberg, H. H. , De Soto, C. B., and Kuethe, J. L. (1966). Evaluation of rating scale formats. Personnel Psychology, 19, 243-259.
3.
Dixon, P. N. , Bobo, M., and Stevick, R. A. (1984). Response differences and preferences for all-category-defined and end-defined Likert formats. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 44, 61-66.
4.
Finn, R. H. (1972). Effect of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 32, 255-265.
5.
Hartley, J. , Trueman, M., and Rodgers, A. (1984). The effects of verbal and numerical quantifiers on questionnaire responses. Applied Ergonomics, 15.2, 149-155.
6.
Huck, S. W. and Jacko, E. J. (1974). Effects of varying the response format of the Alpert-Haber Achievement Anxiety Test. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 21, 159-163.
7.
Landy, F. J. and Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
8.
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5, 707-754.
9.
Murray, H. G. (1984). The impact of formative and summative evaluation of teaching in North American universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 9, 117-132.
10.
Newstead, S. E. and Collis, J. M. (1987). Context and the interpretation of quantifiers of frequency. Ergonomics, 30, 1447-1462.
11.
Peters, D. L. and McCormick, E. J. (1966). Comparative reliability of numerically anchored versus job-task anchored rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 92-96.
12.
Smith, P. and Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149-155.
13.
Spector, P. E. (1976). Choosing response categories for summated rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 374-375.
14.
Wells, W. D. and Smith, G. (1960). Four semantic rating scales compared. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 393-397.
15.
Wyatt, R. C. and Meyers, L. S. (1987). Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type response scales. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 47, 27-35.
