College of Nursing: Assignment ON Likert Scale

COLLEGE OF
NURSING
ASSIGNMENT
ON
LIKERT SCALE
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
A Likert scale but more commonly pronounced is a psychometric scale commonly involved in
research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses
in survey research, such that the term (or more accurately the Likert-type scale) is often used
interchangeably with rating scale, although there are other types of rating scales.
The scale is named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis Likert. Likert distinguished between a
scale proper, which emerges from collective responses to a set of items (usually eight or more),
and the format in which responses are scored along a range. Technically speaking, a Likert scale
refers only to the former. The difference between these two concepts has to do with the
distinction Likert made between the underlying phenomenon being investigated and the means
of capturing variation that points to the underlying phenomenon.
When responding to a Likert item, respondents specify their level of agreement or
disagreement on a symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements. Thus, the range
captures the intensity of their feelings for a given item.
A scale can be created as the simple sum or average of questionnaire responses over the set of
individual items (questions).
Composition
An example questionnaire about a website design, with answers as a Likert scale
A Likert scale is the sum of responses on several Likert items. Because many Likert scales pair
each constituent Likert item with its own instance of a visual analogue scale (e.g., a horizontal
line, on which a subject indicates his or her response by circling or checking tick-marks), an
individual item is itself sometimes erroneously referred to as being or having a scale, with this
error creating pervasive confusion in the literature and parlance of the field.
A Likert item is simply a statement that the respondent is asked to evaluate by giving it a
quantitative value on any kind of subjective or objective dimension, with level of
agreement/disagreement being the dimension most commonly used. Well-designed Likert
items exhibit both "symmetry" and "balance". Symmetry means that they contain equal
numbers of positive and negative positions whose respective distances apart are bilaterally
symmetric about the "neutral"/zero value (whether or not that value is presented as a
candidate). Balance means that the distance between each candidate value is the same,
allowing for quantitative comparisons such as averaging to be valid across items containing
more than two candidate values. Often five ordered response levels are used, although many
psychometricians advocate using seven or nine levels; an empirical study found that items with
five or seven levels may produce slightly higher mean scores relative to the highest possible
attainable score, compared to those produced from the use of 10 levels, and this difference
was statistically significant. In terms of the other data characteristics, there was very little
difference among the scale formats in terms of variation about the mean, skewness or kurtosis.
The format of a typical five-level Likert item, for example, could be:
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
Likert scaling is a bipolar scaling method, measuring either positive or negative response to a
statement. Sometimes an even-point scale is used, where the middle option of "Neither agree
nor disagree" is not available. This is sometimes called a "forced choice" method, since the
neutral option is removed. . The neutral option can be seen as an easy option to take when a
respondent is unsure, and so whether it is a true neutral option is questionable. A 1987 study
found negligible differences between the use of "undecided" and "neutral" as the middle
option in a 5-point Likert scale.
Likert scales may be subject to distortion from several causes. Respondents
may:
 Avoid using extreme response categories (central tendency bias), especially out of a

desire to avoid being perceived as having extremist views (an instance of social desirability
bias). This effect may appear early in a test due to an expectation that questions which the
subject has stronger views on may follow, such that on earlier questions one "leaves room"
for stronger responses later in the test. This expectation creates bias that is especially
pernicious in that its effects are not uniform throughout the test and cannot be corrected
for through simple across-the-board normalization;
 Agree with statements as presented (acquiescence bias), with this effect especially
strong among persons, such as children, developmentally disabled persons, and the elderly
or infirm, who are subjected to a culture of institutionalization that encourages and
incentivizes eagerness to please;
 Disagree with sentences as presented out of a defensive desire to avoid making
erroneous statements and/or avoid negative consequences that respondents may fear will
result from their answers being used against them, especially if misinterpreted and/or
taken out of context;
 Provide answers that they believe will be evaluated as indicating strength or lack of
weakness/dysfunction ("faking good"),
 Provide answers that they believe will be evaluated as indicating weakness or presence
of impairment/pathology ("faking bad"),
 Try to portray themselves or their organization in a light that they believe the examiner
or society to consider more favorable than their true beliefs (social desirability bias, the
intersubjective version of objective "faking good" discussed above);
 Try to portray themselves or their organization in a light that they believe the examiner
or society to consider less favorable/more unfavorable than their true beliefs (norm
defiance, the intersubjective version of objective "faking bad" discussed above).
Designing a scale with balanced keying (an equal number of positive and negative statements
and, especially, an equal number of positive and negative statements regarding each position or
issue in question) can obviate the problem of acquiescence bias, since acquiescence on
positively keyed items will balance acquiescence on negatively keyed items, but defensive,
central tendency, and social desirability biases are somewhat more problematic.
Scoring and analysis

After the questionnaire is completed, each item may be analyzed separately or in some cases
item responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items. Hence, Likert scales are
often called summative scales.
Whether individual Likert items can be considered as interval-level data, or whether they
should be treated as ordered-categorical data is the subject of considerable disagreement in
the literature with strong convictions on what are the most applicable methods. This
disagreement can be traced back, in many respects, to the extent to which Likert items are
interpreted as being ordinal data.
There are two primary considerations in this discussion. First, Likert scales are arbitrary. The
value assigned to a Likert item has no objective numerical basis, either in terms of measure
theory or scale (from which a distance metric can be determined). The value assigned to each
Likert item is simply determined by the researcher designing the survey, who makes the
decision based on a desired level of detail. However, by convention Likert items tend to be
assigned progressive positive integer values. Likert scales typically range from 2 to 10 – with 3
or 5 being the most common . Further, this progressive structure of the scale is such that each
successive Likert item is treated as indicating a ‘better’ response than the preceding value. (This
may differ in cases where reverse ordering of the Likert Scale is needed).
The second, and possibly more important point, is whether the "distance" between each
successive item category is equivalent, which is inferred traditionally. For example, in the above
five-point Likert item, the inference is that the ‘distance’ between category 1 and 2 is the same
as between category 3 and 4. In terms of good research practice, an equidistant presentation
by the researcher is important; otherwise a bias in the analysis may result. For example, a four-
point Likert item with categories "Poor", "Average", "Good", and "Very Good" is unlikely to
have all equidistant categories since there is only one category that can receive a below
average rating. This would arguably bias any result in favor of a positive outcome. On the other
hand, even if a researcher presents what he or she believes are equidistant categories, it may
not be interpreted as such by the respondent.
A good Likert scale, as above, will present a symmetry of categories about a midpoint with
clearly defined linguistic qualifiers. In such symmetric scaling, equidistant attributes will
typically be more clearly observed or, at least, inferred. It is when a Likert scale is symmetric
and equidistant that it will behave more like an interval-level measurement. So while a Likert
scale is indeed ordinal, if well presented it may nevertheless approximate an interval-level
measurement. This can be beneficial since, if it was treated just as an ordinal scale, then some
valuable information could be lost if the ‘distance’ between Likert items were not available for
consideration. The important idea here is that the appropriate type of analysis is dependent on
how the Likert scale has been presented.
Notions of central tendency are often applicable at the item level - that is responses often show
a quasi-normal distribution. The validity of such measures depends on the underlying interval
nature of the scale. If interval nature is assumed for a comparison of two groups, the paired
samples t-test is not inappropriate . If non-parametric tests are to be performed the Pratt
(1959)[15] modification to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is recommended over the
standard Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Responses to several Likert questions may be summed providing that all questions use the
same Likert scale and that the scale is a defensible approximation to an interval scale, in which
case the central limit theorem allows treatment of the data as interval data measuring a latent
variabled . If the summed responses fulfill these assumptions, parametric statistical tests such
as the analysis of variance can be applied. Typical cutoffs for thinking that this approximation
will be acceptable is a minimum of 4 and preferably 8 items in the sum.
To model binary Likert responses directly, they may be represented in a binomial form by
summing agree and disagree responses separately. The chi-squared, Cochran's Q test,
or McNemar test are common statistical procedures used after this transformation. Non-
parametric tests such as chi-squared test, Mann–Whitney test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
or Kruskal–Wallis test are often used in the analysis of Likert scale data.
Alternatively, Likert scale responses can be analyzed with an ordered probit model, preserving
the ordering of responses without the assumption of an interval scale. The use of an ordered
probit model can prevent errors that arise when treating ordered ratings as interval-level
measurements.
Consensus based assessment (CBA) can be used to create an objective standard for Likert scales
in domains where no generally accepted or objective standard exists. Consensus based
assessment (CBA) can be used to refine or even validate generally accepted standards.
Visual presentation of Likert-type data

An important part of data analysis and presentation is the visualization (or plotting) of data. The
subject of plotting Likert (and other) rating data is discussed at length in two papers by Robbins
and Heiberger In the first they recommend the use of what they call diverging stacked bar
charts and compare them to other plotting styles. The second paper describes the use of the
likert function in the HH package for R, and gives many examples of its use.
Level of measurement
The five response categories are often believed to represent an Interval level of measurement.
But this can only be the case if the intervals between the scale points correspond to empirical
observations in a metric sense. Reips and Funke (2008)[21] show that this criterion is much better
met by a visual analogue scale. In fact, there may also appear phenomena which even question
the ordinal scale level in Likert scales.[22] For example, in a set of items A,B,C rated with a Likert
scale circular relations like A > B, B > C and C > A can appear. This violates the axiom of
transitivity for the ordinal scale.
Research by Labovit and Traylor[24] provide evidence that, even with rather large distortions of
perceived distances between scale points, Likert-type items perform closely to scales that are
perceived as equal intervals. So these items and other equal-appearing scales in questionnaires
are robust to violations of the equal distance assumption many researchers believe are
required for parametric statistical procedures and tests.
Rasch model
Likert scale data can, in principle, be used as a basis for obtaining interval level estimates on a
continuum by applying the polytomous Rasch model, when data can be obtained that fit this
model. In addition, the polytomous Rasch model permits testing of the hypothesis that the
statements reflect increasing levels of an attitude or trait, as intended. For example, application
of the model often indicates that the neutral category does not represent a level of attitude or
trait between the disagree and agree categories.
Again, not every set of Likert scaled items can be used for Rasch measurement. The data has to
be thoroughly checked to fulfill the strict formal axioms of the model.

College of Nursing: Assignment ON Likert Scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

College of Nursing: Assignment ON Likert Scale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

College of Nursing: Assignment ON Likert Scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLLEGE OF

An example questionnaire about a website design, with answers as a Likert scale

 Avoid using extreme response categories (central tendency bias), especially out of a

Scoring and analysis

Visual presentation of Likert-type data

You might also like