Talk:Likert scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Number of Options 2 Data analysis 3 Item Selection 4 On Likert Inventing the Scale 5 Wikipedia bug in links 6 pronounciation 7 Non-sensical statement?

[edit] Number of Options

Working in Human-Computer Interactions for web usability, business people often ask, "Why do you use a 1-5 scale and not a 1-10 scale?" I explain that choice is largely subjective. 7 or 10 choices offer greater granularity, but can be too focused for some surveys. It comes down to a Goldilocks problem, how hot do you want your porridge.

Understanding the subjectivity of this survey technique might help readers understand it in their context.

Jay jayamorgan at gmail

The number of categories that can be sustained is an empirical question. It's not so much a matter of 'how hot do you want your porridge' -- rather, how fine-grained can you make the information without it being artificially so? See polytomous Rasch model for further explanation of this point. For my part, though, I thank you for the comments, very useful. Choice is subjective, yes, but that doesn't mean preferences, attitudes, etc. can't be consistent. Stephenhumphry 05:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Seven or nine point scales tend to give much more granularity. This is because a 5 point scale only allows two for levels of agreement or disagreement. More than 9 categories tends to create a cognitive overload. Klonimus 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Like your comments below, important points for this article. On comment above, I'd like to see evidence for greater granularity with seven categories: i.e. evidence within the structure of the data when subjected to analyses that are sensitivie to this. The problem is separating the semantic space so that the categories carry substantive differences, in terms of the attitude, affective disposition, or whatever is relevant to the item statement. I don't use Likert data much for various reasons, but in my experience, when appling Rasch models I have not found that more than 4 or 5 categories contribute additional information. There ends up being a lot of overlap between categories on the latent continuum and relevant thresholds do not discriminate. Nonetheless, this is not to say it is not possible to achieve such things with sufficient skill and thought. Stephenhumphry 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Data analysis

I moved this out of the main body becuase it's not directly relevment as is. The scale and items itself is analysed using "item analysis" methods such a Cronbach's alpha etc. Additionally scales may be analysied by factor analysis, or Guttman/Mokken criteria. Often items, are analysed by looking at their ability to discriminate between high and low scorers on the test.

The summated test scores, can be worked wtih anyway way you like. Klonimus 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In practice, data obtained from Likert scales is analyised using Parametric methods such as Student's t-test or ANOVA are also often used to analyse Likert scale data. However the the ordinal data generated by the arithmetic operations involved in the calculation of means require interval level measurements.

Data obtained from Likert scales can be analysed by nonparametric methods such as Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance.

MacLennan 04:14, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat debatable that Likert scaling is ordinal according to Stevens four levels of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio). It seems to fall somewhere in between ordinal and interval scaling. Although there is nothing in the Likert scaling method that would guarantee "equal-appearing intervals" as required for interval scales, in his original article Likert himself was quite surprised that his simple scaling method in several studies yielded highly correlated results (.97-.99) with the commonly-accepted standard for interval scaling, the more complex approach due to Thurstone using ratings by subject-matter-experts. Finally, parametric statistical analyses make no assumptions about interval level measurement as is commonly believed, and indeed procedures such as the t-test and ANOVA were developed prior to the introduction of Stevens levels of measurement.

Have added the obvious easy statistical tools which were missing. Sentence was ‘When treated as ordinal data, Likert responses can be analyzed using non-parametric tests, such as the Mann-Whitney test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test’, and now reads ’When treated as ordinal data, Likert responses can be collated into bar charts, central tendency summarised by the median or the mode (but not the mean), dispersion summarised by the range across quartiles (but not the standard deviation), or analyzed using non-parametric tests, e.g. Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or Kruskal-Wallis test’. John Pons 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Text was unclear about the conditions under summation may reasonably apply. The statements 'item responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items' and ‘When responses to several Likert items are summed, they may be treated as interval data...' suggest that it's always possible to sum the scores, and that doing so makes them interval data! Have changed the wording to emphasise the conditionality. Now reads 'in some cases item responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items' and ‘Responses to several Likert questions may be summed, providing that all questions use the same Likert scale and that the scale is a defendable approximation to an interval scale, in which case they may be treated as interval data measuring a latent variable.’ And replaced the unspecified ‘relevant assumptions ’ with ‘these assumptions’.

John Pons 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Item Selection

I think the point about item selection in a Likert scale is absolutely fundamental to how these scales should be constructed. Items in a Likert scale should be selected on the basis that they are likely to lead to extreme responses from people with attitudes at the extremes of what is being measured. So if I am measuring a political attitude such as libertarianism vs authoritarianism, I might try to select items such as "People should be allowed to behave however they like, even if it offends other people". You might expect an extreme libertarian to agree strongly with this and an extreme authoritarian to violently disagree. Most wishy-washy liberals would waver somewhere in the centre. The value of selecting these types of item is that they allow the representation of the whole of the spectrum of attitudes. DrJohnBrooke 11:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Likert Inventing the Scale

My measurement professor claimed that there is evidence that Likert did not "invent" this scale (several published articles used the scale previous to the referenced article by Likert). Unless somebody has researched this issue, the artilce would not say Likert invented this scale but rather that he is "said to have" or "thought to have" or, better yet, that the scale is named after him. (rlj)

[edit] Wikipedia bug in links

A couple of the links in this article (as of today) are highlighted in red and the status decoding shows that the links are apparently set for the editing of the targets. Inside this article, those links and the non-red links appear to be formatted in exactly the same way? Shanen (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pronounciation

We need a citation for the pronounciation of the work Likert. All the academics I know say "Like-ert". -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this pronunciation is incorrect. It should be "like-urt" as stated on Likert bio page. cristo@princeton.edu; Jan 2 2007

It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, it's probably a matter of where you're from, as with the pronunciation of many names (and words). I don't have a peer-reviewed reference but see discussion here [[1]]. Holon 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's not a matter of correct or incorrect..." Excuse me? This is the sort of logic that frequently imperils Wiki. When both the wife and the son of Rensis Likert pronounce it Lick-ert not even wilful ignorance such as yours is an excuse. Yankoz

Basic wiki tenet: assume good faith. Please. I pronounce it Lick-ert. However, it's not a matter of logical deduction or even inference, it's a matter of convention. I certainly prefer to follow the convention where possible, but know Chinese people whose names I cannot say properly. Do you think all English speaking should pronounce such words as restaurant exactly as the French do, including the pronunciation of 'r'? I do, but I know how. Good luck with that! If any pronunciation is to be given, it should be Lick-ert, but otherwise it should just be left out. Anyone know the country of origin of the name? Holon 09:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation of the name is readily accessible to English speakers. Yankoz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.20.50 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

So what is the country of origin of the name? How do you know the English pronunciation Lick-ert is OK? Interested. Holon 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been told by the psychology professors here at the University of Michigan, Likert did indeed pronounce his name "Lick-ert" and we have a mission to use it correctly wherever we go, in order to "spread the word" so to speak. 141.214.17.5 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took a shot at dealing with this issue with a (sourced) section on pronunciation. 141.116.236.23 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an anti-American slant in all this business of pronunciation (as always). No one bats an eye when the Germans call their stereo system a "HEE-fi," instead of a "HI-fi." Or go to their kitchen to use the "MEE-kro," and not the "Micro-wave" oven. These are American words for American inventions ("High Fidelity" and "Microwave"), but it's perfectly okay for people to alter their pronunciation to make them easier to say. But when Americans do the same, they get ridiculed and/or looked down upon. Granted, this is a man's name. But were I ever to greet his family, I'd use the proper pronunciation (or as best I could manage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Pons's information can be found at thorenshistorypage.tripo.com along with the other information at Loron's Astronomy Mall hifi link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.181.147 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sensical statement?

What is this supposed to mean, "These can be applied only when the components are more than 5?" --Belg4mit (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)