- about the citation; and some musing.
On 19 Sep 2001 18:11:59 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 05:14 PM 9/19/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> >It has Likert's original observations on writing
> >an attitude scale (1932, which I had not seen elsewhere).
dmr >
> likert's
At 05:14 PM 9/19/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>It has Likert's original observations on writing
>an attitude scale (1932, which I had not seen elsewhere).
likert's work appeared in the archives of psychology ... #141 i think ...
in 1932 ... it was his dissertation work ... under the direction i
As I was saying a few days ago -
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:37:55 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ ... ]
> It is often useful to read what is published in several
> textbooks. Sometimes old textbooks have as much
> to say as new textbooks do, if the old ones don't
> assume so many ans
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:58:37 +1200, "Magenta"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.. is there a good resource that discusses all the issues raised in this
> thread? I've found your FAQ information very helpful - is there a spot
> there for this type of discussion?
>
Resources? I think my FAQ has
Development of a scale, i.e., converting non-numeric attitudes (and other
non-numeric 'stuff') into a number scale, is no easy matter. So you
demonstrated. Some people will treat a 2 point scale as a dichotomy, skipping
gradations in between. Some people will treat a 5 point scale (true, origin
I tried to use a visual scale in a student undergrad assignment (so they would
have more continuous-like numbers). It was hopeless. Some of the respondants
circled anchors, no matter how explicit I tried to make the instructions (I see
that you (Michelle) left the intermediate anchors off, thoug
At 11:29 AM 9/11/01 +1200, Magenta wrote:
>I incorporate a separate "N/A" option. This could be included in an earlier
>question that would ensure respondents who should not answer the questions
>were skipped over those questions. This is standard practice, e.g. in CATI
>situations.
>CATI = compu
I incorporate a separate "N/A" option. This could be included in an earlier
question that would ensure respondents who should not answer the questions
were skipped over those questions. This is standard practice, e.g. in CATI
situations.
CATI = computer assisted telephone interviewing.
IMO the p
At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote:
>It would treat "don't agree" as the zero point. So an answer at the 100%
>point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point.
let's say the item is
"i like statistics"
and, we have two people ... PERSON 1 who HATES statistics
At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote:
>It would treat "don't agree" as the zero point. So an answer at the 100%
>point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point.
again ... one (of many) problems with this notion is that it assumes that a
person who opts for this c
It is certainly true that the variable
X = distance from the left hand end of the line (in whatever units you
choose)
is a ratio variable, because the zero is not arbitrary.
But the variable
Y = level of agreement, recorded as distance from the left hand end of
this particular line
is not a r
5 is 5 times 0?
Alan
dennis roberts wrote:
>
> TO TALK about these things as ratio scales is downright silly
>
> look at the item:
>
> stat will help me in my professional work
>
> don't agree |(0)__(5)__| agree
>
> you aren't going to claim that the "agree"
Hmm.. is there a good resource that discusses all the issues raised in this
thread? I've found your FAQ information very helpful - is there a spot
there for this type of discussion?
cheers
Michelle
"Rich Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
[ taking it out of the HTML script ]
On 8 Sep 2001 22:14:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Warner) wrote:
[ ... snip, details of excellently devising a pragmatic measurement
on the job]
= start
"Years later I discovered what I thought was a Likert Scale, so I
called what I had done a Li
Michelle,
I think you have your standards set higher that it is
possible to meet. Or than it is necessary. And you
haven't considered how easy it is to FAIL the tough
standards
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:25:24 +1200, "Magenta"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
>
> My biggest problem with
There has been a sizable amount of traffic on this topic, which if I may
summarize a little (oversimplify, if you prefer :) includes the ideas
that
a) a "Likert scale" involves only those ranges of
things that Prof. Likert used - e. g., attitudes
b) [not (a)] a "Likert scale" can involve o
"Donald Burrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Magenta wrote in part:
> > You would then be able to use, e.g. ANOVA, on your test results, which
> would be numeric in millimeters.
>
> Or other units of length -- sixteenth-i
It would treat "don't agree" as the zero point. So an answer at the 100%
point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point.
The comparison with zero comes in the analysis - the mean/median would give
you "true" averages. Obviously, you couldn't say that the strongly ag
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Magenta wrote in part:
(responding to Rich Ulrich's remark:)
> > Michelle, I hope that you now know that you got tangled up in
> > hypothetical illustrations which you now regret.
>
> Sure do, I think that if you redid it so that the scale was now:
>
> don't agree
At 11:06 AM 9/8/01 +1200, Magenta wrote:
>Sure do, I think that if you redid it so that the scale was now:
>
>don't agree
>strongly agree
> |___|
>
>that would give you a ratio scale between no agreement and strong agreement.
>You would then be able to
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:28:59 +1200, "Magenta"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ snip, quoting ]
>
> > My understanding of the use of visual analog scales is that only the
anchors
> > are labelled - so that you have a line like so:
> >
> > strongly disagree
> > strongly agree
> > |_
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:28:59 +1200, "Magenta"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip, quoting ]
> My understanding of the use of visual analog scales is that only the anchors
> are labelled - so that you have a line like so:
>
> strongly disagree
> strongly agree
> |_
At 11:22 AM 9/7/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>I agree with Mike's opinion, above, that "Likert Scale" does
>not need to refer to attitudes, and that it still ought to imply
>that some amount of reliability testing has been performed.
well, i happen to take a different view ... and that is ... t
( Posted to sci.stat.edu and sci.stat.consult. I notice that there
are several replies in sci.stat.eduthat came from that mailing
list, and were not cross-posted.)
On 7 Sep 2001 07:38:00 -0700, Michael Lacy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the locus classicus, I think:
> Likert, Rensis
Here's the locus classicus, I think:
Likert, Rensis. 1932. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes."
Archives of Psychology 140: pp. 44-53.
This and numerous other classic articles in scaling are reprinted in
Maranell, Gary M.(ed.) 1974. Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral
Scientists. Chi
At 06:28 PM 9/7/01 +1200, Magenta wrote:
>"John Uebersax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A recent question made me realize the extent of ambiguity in the use
> > of "Likert scale" and related terms. I'd like to see things be more
> > clear.
"John Uebersax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A recent question made me realize the extent of ambiguity in the use
> of "Likert scale" and related terms. I'd like to see things be more
> clear. Here are my thoughts (I don't claim they are co
Alan McLean wrote:
> The composite variable or measure (hopefully) has a reasonably
> numeric scale.
I don't think (in light of the Central Limit Theorem) that the problem
is whether the composite's "reasonably numeric". It is. The problem,
when the data's given the usual ANOVic treatmen
It's certainly true that there is a semantic problem, with people
interpreting terms in different ways. (So what's new?)
Having started life (so to speak) as a mathematician, a 'scale' is a
characteristic of the variable being measured. The construct that a
couple of people have referred to as a
Rensis Likert was instrumental in founding the Institute for Social
Research at the University of Michigan in the mid 1940s. He was truly
a pioneer statistician and psychologist. He retired from Michigan in
1970 and passed away in 1981. Variants of his 1 to 5 or 1 to 7 scale
are still found on
we do have a semantics problem with terms like this ... scale ... and
confuse sometimes the actual physical paper and pencil instrument with the
underlying continuum on which we are trying to place people
so, even in likert's work ... he refers to THE attitude scales ... and then
lists the ite
again ... the best place to read about what rensis likert did ... is to
read his work:
a technique for the measurement of attitudes, archives of psychology, #140,
New York, June 1932
to the best of my knowledge, this document is not online in any form (not
that it should be) even though it is
Science Center
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Uebersax
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.
A recent question made me realize the extent of ambiguity
A recent question made me realize the extent of ambiguity in the use
of "Likert scale" and related terms. I'd like to see things be more
clear. Here are my thoughts (I don't claim they are correct; they're
just a starting point for discussion). Concise responses are
encouraged. If there are en
34 matches
Mail list logo
