Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

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 Newstead, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, J.
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?

The Effect of Response Format on Ratings of Teaching

Stephen E. Newstead

Plymouth Polytechnic, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA U.K.

John Arnold

Plymouth Polytechnic, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA U.K.

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.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 49, No. 1, 33-43 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164489491004
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
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L.-J. Weng
Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2004; 64(6): 956 - 972.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L.-J. Weng and C.-P. Cheng
Effects of Response Order on Likert-Type Scales
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2000; 60(6): 908 - 924.
[Abstract] [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]