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
