Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

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 Roberts, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Wedell, D. H.
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?

Validity Issues in the Likert and Thurstone Approaches to Attitude Measurement

James S. Roberts

Medical University of South Carolinaroberjam{at}musc.edu.

James E. Laughlin

Douglas H. Wedell

University of South Carolina

This article highlights the theoretical differences between the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement and demonstrates how such differences can lead to discrepant attitude estimates for individuals with the most extreme opinions. Both simulated data and real data on attitude toward abortion are used to demonstrate this discrepancy. The results suggest that attitude researchers should, at the very least, devote more attention to the empirical response characteristics of items on a Likert attitude questionnaire. At most, these results suggest that other methods, such as the Thurstone technique or one of its recently developed item response theory counterparts, should be used to derive attitude estimates from disagree-agree responses.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59, No. 2, 211-233 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00131649921969811
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
J. S. Roberts
Modified Likelihood-Based Item Fit Statistics for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model
Applied Psychological Measurement, July 1, 2008; 32(5): 407 - 423.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. de la Torre, S. Stark, and O. S. Chernyshenko
Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation of Item Parameters for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model
Applied Psychological Measurement, May 1, 2006; 30(3): 216 - 232.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
R. A. McCloy, E. D. Heggestad, and C. L. Reeve
A Silk Purse From the Sow's Ear: Retrieving Normative Information From Multidimensional Forced-Choice Items
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2005; 8(2): 222 - 248.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. S. Roberts, Y. Lin, and J. E. Laughlin
Computerized Adaptive Testing with the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model
Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2001; 25(2): 177 - 196.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. S. Roberts, J. R. Donoghue, and J. E. Laughlin
A General Item Response Theory Model for Unfolding Unidimensional Polytomous Responses
Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 2000; 24(1): 3 - 32.
[Abstract] [PDF]