Volume 5, Issue 3 (December 2018)                   J Educ Community Health 2018, 5(3): 63-72 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mirahmadizadeh A, Delam H, Seif M, Bahrami R. Designing, Constructing, and Analyzing Likert Scale Data. J Educ Community Health. 2018; 5 (3) :63-72
URL: http://jech.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-410-en.html
1- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
2- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , hameddelam8@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1899 Views)
Background & Objective: Today, Likert scale data is used in many studies in medical, educational, and psychometric fields to understand the attitudes of individuals. This study was conducted with the aim of correctly understanding how to design a Likert scale and to analyse the issues and challenges in determining the reliability and analysis of Likert scale data.
Instruments & Methods: In the current review study, search engines such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were searched between May and August 2017. Based on the searched terms, 532 articles were primarily obtained; according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study, eventually 60 articles were examined.
Results: Using the 5-point scale is more common than other multi-choice options. Considering the option as intervals encourage people to answer the questions. While using Likert scale data, there are always decision-making challenges, especially when discussing the type of test to be used for parametric or non-parametric tests. If there is a presumption of the normalization of the distance data, independent t-test is used for the two separate groups. 
Conclusion: In most of the Likert scale studies that have been carried out so far, there is some confusion or disagreement with how to design, construct, and analyse its data. Ultimately, although there is no detailed and comprehensive agreement on the design and analysis of Likert data, this study, with a general summary in this regard, has greatly curtailed the confusion.
Persian Full-Text [PDF 304 kb]   (1061 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: General
Received: 2017/12/13 | Accepted: 2018/10/13

1. Li Q. A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40(5):1609-18. [DOI]
2. Orr MG, Ohlsson S. Relationship between complexity and liking as a function of expertise. Music Percept Interdiscip J. 2005;22(4):583-611. [DOI]
3. Jamieson S. Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Med Educ. 2004;38(12):1217-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Hodge DR, Gillespie D. Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Soc Work Res. 2003;27(1):45-55. [DOI]
5. Salimi M, Shahbazmoradi S, Bamdad Soufi J. A managerial research approach toward designing the sum of scores scale (Likert). J Manag Knowl. 2008;21(80):41-60. [Persian]
6. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-43. [DOI] [PubMed]
7. Sullivan GM, Artino Jr AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(4):541-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
8. Hartley J. Some thoughts on Likert-type scales. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2014;14(1):83-6. [DOI]
9. Munshi J. A method for constructing Likert scales. SSRN. 2014 Apr.
10. Russell CJ, Bobko P. Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. J Appl Psychol. 1992;77(3):336-42. [DOI]
11. Chang L. A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Appl Psychol Meas. 1994;18(3):205-15. [DOI]
12. Chan JC. Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1991;51(3):531-40. [DOI]
13. Ray JJ. Acquiescence and problems with forced-choice scales. J Soc Psychol.1990;130(3):397-9.
14. Brown JD. Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
15. Albaum G. The Likert scale revisited. Int J Mark Res. 1997;39(2):1-21. [DOI]
16. Edwards ML, Smith BC. The effects of the neutral response option on the extremeness of participant responses. Incite. 2014;6.
17. Alexandrov A. Characteristics of single-item measures in Likert scale format. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2010;8(1):1-12.
18. Gliem JA, Gliem RR. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Columbus: Ohio State University; 2003.
19. Friedman H, Herskovitz PJ, Pollack S. Biasing effects of scale - checking styles on response to a Likert scale. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria VA: American Statistical Association; 1993.
20. Johns R. Likert items and scales [Internet]. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde; 2010 [cited 2010 Mar 1]. Available from: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/media/262829/discover_likertfactsheet.pdf
21. Alreck PL, Settle RB. The survey research handbook. Irwin: Irwin; 1995.
22. Grimm P. Pretesting a questionnaire. Wiley Int Encycl Mark. 2010 Dec.
23. Mellor D, Moore KA. The use of Likert scales with children. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39(3):369-79. [DOI] [PubMed]
24. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581-6. [DOI]
25. Bartholomeu D, Rocha Da Silva MC, Montiel JM. Improving the Likert scale of the children’s social skills test by means of rasch model. Psychology. 2016;7(6):820-8. [DOI]
26. Warmbrod JR. Reporting and interpreting scores derived from Likert-type scales. J Agric Educ. 2014;55(5):30-47. [DOI]
27. Sarmad Z, Bazargan A, Hejazi E. Research methods in behavioral sciences. 8th Edition. Tehran: Agah; 2004. pp. 132-7. [Persian]
28. Murray J. Likert data: What to use, parametric or non-parametric?. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 2013;4(11):258-64.
29. Vigderhous G. The level of measurement and “permissible” statistical analysis in social research. Sociol Perspect. 1977;20(1):61-72. [DOI]
30. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(5):625-32. [PubMed]
31. Carifio J, Perla R. Resolving the 50‐year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1150-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
32. Hren D, Lukić IK, Marusić A, Vodopivec I, Vujaklija A, Hrabak M, et al. Teaching research methodology in medical schools: Students' attitudes towards and knowledge about science. Med Educ. 2004;38(1):81-6. [DOI]
33. Kuzon WM Jr, Urbanchek MG, Mc Cabe S. The seven deadly sins of statistical analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 1996;37(3):265-72. [DOI]
34. Knapp TR. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy. Nurs Res. 1990;39(2):121-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
35. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG. The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: A psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):165-70. [DOI] [PubMed]
36. De Winter JCF, Dodou D. Five-point Likert items: T test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2010;15(11):1-16.
37. Mc Crum-Gardner E. Which is the correct statistical test to use?. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46(1):38-41. [DOI] [PubMed]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | J Educ Community Health

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb