Likert scales relating to quality of life were completed by the homeless (N = 75); first year students (N = 301) and a town population (N = 72). Participants also completed free text questions. The scale and free text data were often contradictory and the results highlighted three processes to account for these disparities: i) frame of reference: current salient issues influenced how questions were interpreted; ii) within-subject comparisons: ratings were based on expectations given past experiences; iii) time frame: those with more stable circumstances showed habituation to their level of deprivation. Likert scale data should be understood within the context of how ratings are made.
ChenCLeeS-YStevensonHW (1995) Response styles and cross cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science6(3): 170–175.
4.
CohenLMannionLMorrisonK (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th edn). London: Routledge Farmer.
5.
CoxEP (1980) The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. Journal of Marketing Research17(4): 407–442.
6.
FestingerL (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations7(2): 117–140.
7.
GarlandR (1991) The mid point on a rating scale: Is it desirable?Marketing Bulletin2(1): 66–70.
8.
GreenfieldRM (1997) Culture as process: Empirical methods for cultural psychology. In: BerryJWPoortingaYHPandeyJ (eds). Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology. Volume 1. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 301–346.
9.
HeineSLehmanDRPengKGreenholtzJ (2002) What’s wrong with cross cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6): 903–918.
10.
HeineSJTakataTLehmanDR (2000) Beyond self presentation: Evidence for self criticism among Japanese. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26(1): 71–78.
11.
HuiCHTriandisHC (1989) Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology20(3): 296–309.
12.
KierujNMoorsG (2010) Variations in response style behaviour by response scale format in attitude research. Journal of Public Opinion Research22(3): 320–342.
13.
LeeJWJonesPMineyamaYZhangXE (2002) Cultural differences in responses to a likert scale. Research in Nursing and Health25(4): 295–306.
14.
MaslowA (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review50(4): 370–396.
15.
MatellMSJacobyJ (1971) Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study 1: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurements31(6): 657–674.
16.
MatellMSJacobyJ (1972) Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology56(6): 506–509.
17.
McNairDLorrMDropplemanL (1971) Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
18.
PengKNisbettREWongNYC (1997) Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods2(4): 329–344.
19.
RapkinBDSchwartzCE (2004) Towards a theoretical model of quality of life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes2(15): 14.
20.
VolkmannJ (1951) Scales of judgement and the implications for social psychology. In: RohrerJHSherifM (eds). Social Psychology at the Cross Roads. New York: Harper279–294.
21.
WildtARMazisMB (1978) Determinants of scale response: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research15(2): 261–267.
22.
WorcesterRMBurnsTR (1975) A statistical examination of the relative precision of verbal scales. Journal of Market Research Society17(2): 181–197.
