Re: Two questions about Likert scales
On the issue of comparing two groups on their responses to a Likert scale, I came across the same issue in some of my summer research. In the military Blacks and women rate the equal opportunity climate worse than Whites and men. Is this because it is worse for them or do the items mean different things to them? I used item response theory to examine their survey, and it may be helpful in answering this question. Stephen Truhon Dept. of Social Sciences Winston-Salem State University Winston-Salem, NC 27110
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
It seems to me that there is a relationship between the question and the scale on which someone answers that question so that, as Deborah has noted, all Likert scales (or there variations) cannot be used for all questions. One way to avoid some of the problems about which I have heard TIPsters talk is to provide the "anchor" in the question (Marc talked a similar issue briefly when he mentioned the use of the midpoint in the scale as an anchor). In Deborah's example, could the question state "relative to other games that you have seen, how gory is "Doom"? Either way, we are simply trying to find an anchor against which we can compare S's responses. One way is to attempt to encourage people to interpret the Likert scale in a similar way, and the other, it seems to me, is to put the anchor in the question itself. Still, I'm still not sure that the problem is solved by "standardizing" either the interpretation of the question or the interpretation of the scale. On a related topic (to which I think Marc also eluded when he talked about the noise that we might get, even within groups), if we ever reach a point where we can get subjects to interpret a exactly the same as each other (or at least convince ourselvles that they are close enough), and we get them to interpret the scale exactly the same as each other, are we removing much of the variation that is of most interest to psychologists? In other words, if we could COMPLETELY solve the "problem" of individual interpretations of a scale (or of a question), would we be studying people, or "modified" people. I understand that some amount of standard interpretation is necessary (we wouldn't want one person to be evaluating temperature when asked to assess how "hot" a food was, another the spice level, and a third the attractiveness of it, but might we be approaching a sort of modern Wundtian introspection where we train people to give us particular types of responses. Just a thought. By the way, research on this issue from Gallop (I am told that they still argue about this intensely over there) is that there are negligible (if any) benefits of having more than 5 points on a Likert scale. The research was internal and was only described to me by a peer who works there. I would be most happy to see any more published research on the topic if anyone comes across it. Cheers! Steve Deborah Briihl wrote: > One clever way that I have seen that helps fix this problem is the way that > Linda Bartoshuk uses to measure taste perception. Instead of the standard 9 > point scale from 1 to 9, she uses what she calls the Green Labeled > Magnitude Scale. For example, if measuring bitterness, the scale ranges > from nothing to very strong to strongest imaginable sensation. While I'm > not sure how easy it would be to use in all situations that use the Likert > scale, it could be adapted to a variety of measures. Using the computer > game example - the most gory game I have ever seen or for computers, the > most frustrating situation I have been in - you get the picture. And, > instead of numbers, the scale is marked on a line like so (sorry if this wraps) > > /_//__/__/__/_/ > nothing weak moderate strong very > strong strongest imaginable sensation > barely detectable > > I am trying out this scale this semester with a student who is interested > in perception of spicy foods. We knew that we would get ceiling effects > using a standard scale (one of our hot sauces is VERY hot), so we are > trying out this one. > > At 05:51 PM 10/24/00 -0500, G. Marc Turner wrote: > >On #1, I was taught LIE-kert as an undergrad (and my mother learned it this > >way in her grad work) but LICK-ert as a grad student. After further > >investigation, Ken's statement is correct as best I can tell. It should be > >LICK-ert. (And hey, some of my professors in grad school knew him, and so I > >trust their pronunciation of his name.) > > > >On #2, again I'm going to agree with what I think Ken is getting at. The > >big question is one of instrumentation. Are the two groups using the scale > >in the same way? My feeling is that when a participant approaches a scale > >like this they form an idea in their mind that represents the mid-point. > >They then use this imaginary mid-point to determine how they respond. Not > >only could there be differences in interprtation between groups, there > >could be lots of variation within a group... and hence lots of noise and > >error in our measurements. > > > >On a semi-related note, when I finally finish my dissertation I'm hoping to > >revive some work on computer literacy I did a couple of years ago. > >Basically, I was in the process of developing a new measure of computer > >literacy and one of the things we looked at in the development was the > >issue of gender differences. Basically, we kept hearing claims that "males > >are more computer literate than
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
One clever way that I have seen that helps fix this problem is the way that Linda Bartoshuk uses to measure taste perception. Instead of the standard 9 point scale from 1 to 9, she uses what she calls the Green Labeled Magnitude Scale. For example, if measuring bitterness, the scale ranges from nothing to very strong to strongest imaginable sensation. While I'm not sure how easy it would be to use in all situations that use the Likert scale, it could be adapted to a variety of measures. Using the computer game example - the most gory game I have ever seen or for computers, the most frustrating situation I have been in - you get the picture. And, instead of numbers, the scale is marked on a line like so (sorry if this wraps) /_//__/__/__/_/ nothing weak moderate strong very strong strongest imaginable sensation barely detectable I am trying out this scale this semester with a student who is interested in perception of spicy foods. We knew that we would get ceiling effects using a standard scale (one of our hot sauces is VERY hot), so we are trying out this one. At 05:51 PM 10/24/00 -0500, G. Marc Turner wrote: >On #1, I was taught LIE-kert as an undergrad (and my mother learned it this >way in her grad work) but LICK-ert as a grad student. After further >investigation, Ken's statement is correct as best I can tell. It should be >LICK-ert. (And hey, some of my professors in grad school knew him, and so I >trust their pronunciation of his name.) > >On #2, again I'm going to agree with what I think Ken is getting at. The >big question is one of instrumentation. Are the two groups using the scale >in the same way? My feeling is that when a participant approaches a scale >like this they form an idea in their mind that represents the mid-point. >They then use this imaginary mid-point to determine how they respond. Not >only could there be differences in interprtation between groups, there >could be lots of variation within a group... and hence lots of noise and >error in our measurements. > >On a semi-related note, when I finally finish my dissertation I'm hoping to >revive some work on computer literacy I did a couple of years ago. >Basically, I was in the process of developing a new measure of computer >literacy and one of the things we looked at in the development was the >issue of gender differences. Basically, we kept hearing claims that "males >are more computer literate than females." Well, on the self-report portions >of our instrument, which used a Likert scale, there was a difference >between the genders. BUT, on the knowledge/application portion where >participants had to actually perform some tasks...or at least demonstrate >some knowledge about how to perform a task... there was NO difference. >(Okay, the average scores between males and females differed by less than >half a point on a scale of 0-50 so there was a "difference" but not a >meaningful one.) > >Basically, it looked like one of two things was happening: > >1) Females were less confident in their abilities to use a computer despite >being equally capable (which appeared to be the case given the manner in >which questions were asked.), or > >2) Females interpretted and used the response scale differently than males >did, which brings us back to the point Ken was making (I think). > >This was a side project I did on a whim in grad school so I never got to >really look at things as much as I would have liked... > >Okay, back to working on the dissertation >- Marc >G. Marc Turner, MEd >Lecturer & Head of Computer Operations >Department of Psychology >Southwest Texas State University >San Marcos, TX 78666 >phone: (512)245-2526 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Deb Dr. Deborah S. Briihl Dept. of Psychology and Counseling Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 (229) 333-5994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well I know these voices must be my soul... Rhyme and Reason - DMB
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
"Kenneth M. Steele" wrote: > > I agree, but the major problem here is caused by comparing > across nonequivalent groups. > > I see this problem ignored most often when people are talking > about "gender differences." Consider the following > stem-and-leaf plots of answers to the question--- > > Is "Doom" a gory computer game? > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Not VeryMediumVery > > Men Women > > 7 7 +++ > 6 +++ 6 +++ > 5 +++ 5 ++ > 4 ++4 ++ > 3 ++3 ++ > 2 ++2 + > 1 + 1 > > Notice that the distribution of Men's answers are shifted > towards "Not" by 1 item but are otherwise identical to the > Women's answers. > > It doesn't matter whether you treat the data as interval or > ordinal (the usual argument involving Likert-type scales). The > summary statistic would indicate that men rate the game as less > gory. > > As John indicated, the problem with this conclusion is that we > don't know whether males and females use the scales in the same > manner. The difference may only mean that men and women have a > systematically different definition of the words "not very." This is exactly the problem as I underdstand it. I am in the middle of tracking down references on this problem. I heard last weekend that either_SS Stevens or Likert claimed Likert (LICK-ert) scales were for within-subjects only. If a group is homogeneous, thee should not be a problem - but we don't always know if a group is homogeneous. These issues came up in Linda Bartoshuk's talk on tasters and non-tasters at NEPA. She used an example similiar to yours. NT = nontasters, people with few taste buds, T(asters) have a medium amount, and ST(supertasters) have alot of taste buds. One of her graphs showed hypothetical results of these 3 groups of Ss tasting a bitter flavor. This is the graph of REALITY: ABSOLUTE MEASURE OF SENSATION: >LOW>--HIGH-> NT *** "Very Strong" T *"Very Strong" ST *"Very Strong" "Very Strong" would represent the upper limit of each group to experience taste sensations. When the data is compressed onto the same scale, differences between the 3 groups will be decreased. A group difference could disappear entirely - or (in an extreme case) reverse direction. -- --- John W. Kulig[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 Plymouth NH USA 03264fax: (603) 535-2412 --- "What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
I understand that Likert scales are often used in survey and marketing research that is purely correlational in nature. However, isn't there a more general methodological issue here as well? If one uses a truly experimental design, people's interpretation of the labels would be obviously be randomly distributed among groups, and the effects would thus wash out. But, as you all know, in performing studies like those involving gender differences, we don't have that luxury. So, wouldn't we have a similar problem in making assertions about gender differences, regardless of whether we used a Likert-type scale, a multiple-choice survey, an open-ended survey, etc? After all, there may very well be differences between genders in how they interpret the question itself, as well as the labels on the Likert scale. As such, while I understand the logic of not making between-group comparisons with Likert scales, I'm not sure that the same logic cannot be applied to the use of other survey methods. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Take Care! "Kenneth M. Steele" wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:37:10 -0400 "John W. Kulig" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Supposedly, it is tricky (or, downright wrong) to use these scales for > > across group comparisons, they are only for within-group comparisons. The > > reason is that different groups' use of the adjectives may not be > > equivalent. If we compare "tasters" versus "nontasters" for instance, the > > the anchor "extremely bitter" for the former may correspond to a very > > intense stimulus - subjectively as intense as a very loud noises. For the > > latter, an "extremely bitter" taste may be at the top of gustatory > > experiences - but relatively mild relative to very loud noises. That is, the > > sensory world of tasters vs. nontasters guarantees these adjectives will be > > interpreted differently. The same logic would apply to other between-group > > comparisons. > > I agree, but the major problem here is caused by comparing > across nonequivalent groups. > > I see this problem ignored most often when people are talking > about "gender differences." Consider the following > stem-and-leaf plots of answers to the question--- > > Is "Doom" a gory computer game? > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Not VeryMediumVery > > Men Women > > 7 7 +++ > 6 +++ 6 +++ > 5 +++ 5 ++ > 4 ++4 ++ > 3 ++3 ++ > 2 ++2 + > 1 + 1 > > Notice that the distribution of Men's answers are shifted > towards "Not" by 1 item but are otherwise identical to the > Women's answers. > > It doesn't matter whether you treat the data as interval or > ordinal (the usual argument involving Likert-type scales). The > summary statistic would indicate that men rate the game as less > gory. > > As John indicated, the problem with this conclusion is that we > don't know whether males and females use the scales in the same > manner. The difference may only mean that men and women have a > systematically different definition of the words "not very." > > Ken > > -- > Kenneth M. Steele[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dept. of Psychology > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA -- Steve Vanden Avond, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Psychology Department of Social Science and History Silver Lake College 2406 Alverno Drive Manitowoc, WI 54220 Voice: (920) 686-6227 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ** http://www.sl.edu/socscience/Default.htm
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
"Kenneth M. Steele" wrote:Consider the following questions... > > I. The contents of CUP A taste: > > +---+---+---+--+---+---+ > extremely extremely > bitter pleasant > >--VS-- > > II. The contents of CUP A taste: > > +---+---+---+--+---+---+ > extremely extremely > bitter pleasant > > It would still seem to me that version II provides more steps > between the extremes and this is where most responses would lie. > More steps means that there is more opportunity to capture > systematic differences, whether you are doing within or > between-S comparisons and whether you treat the measures as > ordinal or interval. SO it may be true that you are more likely > to see the choice of an "extremely" item in version I, but you > still have lost resolution among the middle items. > > Can these practitioners cite empirical work on this scaling > issue? > At the conference talk - no. But I am e-mailing the speaker (Linda Bartoshuk) for some papers to read on the scaling issue. > > And what is beyond "extremely" > Yes - it's not very logical! -- --- John W. Kulig[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 Plymouth NH USA 03264fax: (603) 535-2412 --- "What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
Jeff sent me the following off-list, with permission to send it to the list if I wanted... and since he made a good point, I thought I would... At 11:35 AM 10/25/2000 +, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote: >Marc said (among other things): >> >Are the two groups using the scale >>in the same way? My feeling is that when a participant approaches a scale >>like this they form an idea in their mind that represents the mid-point. >>They then use this imaginary mid-point to determine how they respond. Not >>only could there be differences in interprtation between groups, there >>could be lots of variation within a group... and hence lots of noise and >>error in our measurements. >> >Call me naive about these scales (which I am) but if differences WITHIN >groups may be due to different ideas as to what the labels mean, then how >can we interpret these scales at all? For me this is a question that I've struggled with for a while now. If you do not know if people interpret the scale in the same way how can you draw any conclusions from it? Basically, we seem to make an assumption that people within a group interpret the scale in the same way. (Borrowing Ken's example, all males use the scale in the same way to judge the level of violence in a video game.) And if we are going to make this assumption, then we might as well make the assumption that everyone interprets the scale in the same way because it all depends on how you choose to define the "group". Is it based on gender (males and females interpret the scale differently)? Or could it be based on, say, major (that psychology majors interpret the scale differently than fine arts majors)? Well, now we have a case where males and females interpret the scale in the same way because they are in the same major (group), but males differ from other males and females differ from other females (variation across the same groups thought to be consistent in the first situation). And this is just one of many unresolved issues about Likert scaling. Experts can't agree on how many categories you should have (5-10 seems to be the most common though). Nor can they decide whether or not you should have a neutral category and/or a "does not apply" option. And then you get to the issue of how many points on the scale should you label (does every point get a label, or just the end points, or perhaps the end points and the middle category... if you use an odd number.) This is then topped off by the rather heated debates about whether the data can be treated as interval, or if you are really only dealing with ordinal information. We have general rules of thumb to provide answers for all of these questions in practice, but from a technical standpoint there is still no clear cut answer that I've encountered. Perhaps someone who has spent more time dealing with these issues can let us know more and perhaps provide some more information. - Marc PS- Despite my uncertainty about what these scales tell us, I do still use them on a regular basis. But, I am always careful in my interpretation of the findings, keeping in mind that we don't know for sure whether or not people use the scales in the same way. G. Marc Turner, MEd Lecturer & Head of Computer Operations Department of Psychology Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 phone: (512)245-2526 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
On #1, I was taught LIE-kert as an undergrad (and my mother learned it this way in her grad work) but LICK-ert as a grad student. After further investigation, Ken's statement is correct as best I can tell. It should be LICK-ert. (And hey, some of my professors in grad school knew him, and so I trust their pronunciation of his name.) On #2, again I'm going to agree with what I think Ken is getting at. The big question is one of instrumentation. Are the two groups using the scale in the same way? My feeling is that when a participant approaches a scale like this they form an idea in their mind that represents the mid-point. They then use this imaginary mid-point to determine how they respond. Not only could there be differences in interprtation between groups, there could be lots of variation within a group... and hence lots of noise and error in our measurements. On a semi-related note, when I finally finish my dissertation I'm hoping to revive some work on computer literacy I did a couple of years ago. Basically, I was in the process of developing a new measure of computer literacy and one of the things we looked at in the development was the issue of gender differences. Basically, we kept hearing claims that "males are more computer literate than females." Well, on the self-report portions of our instrument, which used a Likert scale, there was a difference between the genders. BUT, on the knowledge/application portion where participants had to actually perform some tasks...or at least demonstrate some knowledge about how to perform a task... there was NO difference. (Okay, the average scores between males and females differed by less than half a point on a scale of 0-50 so there was a "difference" but not a meaningful one.) Basically, it looked like one of two things was happening: 1) Females were less confident in their abilities to use a computer despite being equally capable (which appeared to be the case given the manner in which questions were asked.), or 2) Females interpretted and used the response scale differently than males did, which brings us back to the point Ken was making (I think). This was a side project I did on a whim in grad school so I never got to really look at things as much as I would have liked... Okay, back to working on the dissertation - Marc G. Marc Turner, MEd Lecturer & Head of Computer Operations Department of Psychology Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 phone: (512)245-2526 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:37:10 -0400 "John W. Kulig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Supposedly, it is tricky (or, downright wrong) to use these scales for > across group comparisons, they are only for within-group comparisons. The > reason is that different groups' use of the adjectives may not be > equivalent. If we compare "tasters" versus "nontasters" for instance, the > the anchor "extremely bitter" for the former may correspond to a very > intense stimulus - subjectively as intense as a very loud noises. For the > latter, an "extremely bitter" taste may be at the top of gustatory > experiences - but relatively mild relative to very loud noises. That is, the > sensory world of tasters vs. nontasters guarantees these adjectives will be > interpreted differently. The same logic would apply to other between-group > comparisons. I agree, but the major problem here is caused by comparing across nonequivalent groups. I see this problem ignored most often when people are talking about "gender differences." Consider the following stem-and-leaf plots of answers to the question--- Is "Doom" a gory computer game? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not VeryMediumVery Men Women 7 7 +++ 6 +++ 6 +++ 5 +++ 5 ++ 4 ++4 ++ 3 ++3 ++ 2 ++2 + 1 + 1 Notice that the distribution of Men's answers are shifted towards "Not" by 1 item but are otherwise identical to the Women's answers. It doesn't matter whether you treat the data as interval or ordinal (the usual argument involving Likert-type scales). The summary statistic would indicate that men rate the game as less gory. As John indicated, the problem with this conclusion is that we don't know whether males and females use the scales in the same manner. The difference may only mean that men and women have a systematically different definition of the words "not very." Ken -- Kenneth M. Steele[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:37:10 -0400 "John W. Kulig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Kenneth M. Steele" wrote: > > > > > > 2. When using a Likert scale with adjective-modified anchors (as in > > > "extremely pleasant" or "extremely bitter") - are we permitted to > > > compare results between subjects/groups? or are we limited to > > > within-subject comparisons? > > > > > > > This is a much trickier question as the use of the adjectives > > has caused people to be less likely to use the most extreme > > values. This would interfere with subjects assigning numbers in > > an interval-like fashion. This could have several effects > > depending upon the number of steps on your scale. Should we > > assume that this individual used these anchors with a 5-point > > scale? > > This weekend I saw the practice of putting the "extreme" adjective not > at the end of the line - but about 3/4 of the way across - with the end of > the line hanging into space. This practice - so they say - makes it easier > to select "extremely." Consider the following questions... I. The contents of CUP A taste: +---+---+---+--+---+---+ extremely extremely bitter pleasant --VS-- II. The contents of CUP A taste: +---+---+---+--+---+---+ extremely extremely bitter pleasant It would still seem to me that version II provides more steps between the extremes and this is where most responses would lie. More steps means that there is more opportunity to capture systematic differences, whether you are doing within or between-S comparisons and whether you treat the measures as ordinal or interval. SO it may be true that you are more likely to see the choice of an "extremely" item in version I, but you still have lost resolution among the middle items. Can these practitioners cite empirical work on this scaling issue? And what is beyond "extremely" Ken -- Kenneth M. Steele[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
"Kenneth M. Steele" wrote: > > > 2. When using a Likert scale with adjective-modified anchors (as in > > "extremely pleasant" or "extremely bitter") - are we permitted to > > compare results between subjects/groups? or are we limited to > > within-subject comparisons? > > > > This is a much trickier question as the use of the adjectives > has caused people to be less likely to use the most extreme > values. This would interfere with subjects assigning numbers in > an interval-like fashion. This could have several effects > depending upon the number of steps on your scale. Should we > assume that this individual used these anchors with a 5-point > scale? This weekend I saw the practice of putting the "extreme" adjective not at the end of the line - but about 3/4 of the way across - with the end of the line hanging into space. This practice - so they say - makes it easier to select "extremely." Supposedly, it is tricky (or, downright wrong) to use these scales for across group comparisons, they are only for within-group comparisons. The reason is that different groups' use of the adjectives may not be equivalent. If we compare "tasters" versus "nontasters" for instance, the the anchor "extremely bitter" for the former may correspond to a very intense stimulus - subjectively as intense as a very loud noises. For the latter, an "extremely bitter" taste may be at the top of gustatory experiences - but relatively mild relative to very loud noises. That is, the sensory world of tasters vs. nontasters guarantees these adjectives will be interpreted differently. The same logic would apply to other between-group comparisons. Interestingly, these scales are used all the time in psychology to make between-group comparisons. btw, while at a recent talk on tasting I discovered that I was a "taster" - if not a borderline "supertaster." -- --- John W. Kulig[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 Plymouth NH USA 03264fax: (603) 535-2412 --- "What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
Re: Two questions about Likert scales
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:08:34 -0400 "John W. Kulig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. Do we measure on a LIE-KURT scale or a LICK-URT scale? > This depends on whether you are a (a)Michigan PhD, (b)pedant, (c)had met Rensis at a convention, or (d) some combination of the former. In that case, you say LICK-URT. On the other hand, if you want the grubby masses whose knowledge of scale construction came from textbooks without pronounciation guides to understand you in conversation then you say LIE-KURT. These are the same sort of squalid scholars who BUT-TON instead of BOO-TON. > 2. When using a Likert scale with adjective-modified anchors (as in > "extremely pleasant" or "extremely bitter") - are we permitted to > compare results between subjects/groups? or are we limited to > within-subject comparisons? > This is a much trickier question as the use of the adjectives has caused people to be less likely to use the most extreme values. This would interfere with subjects assigning numbers in an interval-like fashion. This could have several effects depending upon the number of steps on your scale. Should we assume that this individual used these anchors with a 5-point scale? (I've seen worse.) Ken > I have the answer to the first question, and maybe the second as well. > > -- > --- > John W. Kulig[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig > Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 > Plymouth NH USA 03264fax: (603) 535-2412 -- Kenneth M. Steele[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA
Two questions about Likert scales
1. Do we measure on a LIE-KURT scale or a LICK-URT scale? 2. When using a Likert scale with adjective-modified anchors (as in "extremely pleasant" or "extremely bitter") - are we permitted to compare results between subjects/groups? or are we limited to within-subject comparisons? I have the answer to the first question, and maybe the second as well. -- --- John W. Kulig[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 Plymouth NH USA 03264fax: (603) 535-2412 --- "What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
