Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wyatt, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Meyers, L. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Psychometric Properties of Four 5-Point Likert Type Response Scales

Randall C. Wyatt

California State University, Sacramento

Lawrence S. Meyers

California State University, Sacramento

One hundred and twenty eight subjects responded to one of four differently labeled 5-point Likert-type response scales. Although no significant differences in test means and in reliability estimates were found among response scales, the scales did differ on measures of variability. Subjects using scales with more nearly absolute endpoints tended to concentrate their responses on the middle scale steps; those responding to scales with less nearly absolute endpoints tended to use the scale steps in a more balanced manner. Greater item variance was associated with scales having less rather than more nearly absolute endpoints.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47, No. 1, 27-35 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164487471003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
T. C. M. Lam and M. Kolic
Effects of Semantic Incompatibility on Rating Response
Applied Psychological Measurement, May 1, 2008; 32(3): 248 - 260.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Socioecon RevHome page
M. Lubker
Inequality and the demand for redistribution: are the assumptions of the new growth theory valid?
Socioecon. Rev., January 1, 2007; 5(1): 117 - 148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GutHome page
K W Wyrwich and V M Staebler Tardino
A blueprint for symptom scales and responses: measurement and reporting
Gut, May 1, 2004; 53(suppl_4): iv45 - iv48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. Chang
Dependability of Anchoring Labels of Likert-Type Scales
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 1997; 57(5): 800 - 807.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Special EducationHome page
K. Storey and R. H. Horner
An Evaluative Review of Social Validation Research Involving Persons with Handicaps
Journal of Special Education, January 1, 1991; 25(3): 352 - 401.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
S. E. Newstead and J. Arnold
The Effect of Response Format on Ratings of Teaching
Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1989; 49(1): 33 - 43.
[Abstract]