For about eight decades, research instruments in the social sciences have been orbiting around Likert’s proposal for his famous response scale. Before him, and also after he managed to impose it, many researchers have tried to find a better solution. This, however, has proven difficult. While solving methodological problems for measuring concepts, by concentrating all the responses in only five categories brings major disadvantages as well: it has extremely low variation, it does not produce metric scores unless combined with similar items, and it cannot be used as such for advanced statistical analysis. In this article, we propose using a continuous response scale as a solution to each of these problems. In our opinion, the possible application of this solution has an extremely high potential to advance social science research methodology.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Bandalos D.L. and C.K. Enders (1996) The Effects of Nonnormality and Number of Response Categories on Reliability. Applied Measurement Education 9(2):151-160.
Borgogni L. Petitta L. and C. Barbaranelli (2004) Il Test di Orientamento Motivazionale (TOM) come strumento per la misurazione della motivazione al lavoro (The Test of Motivational Orientations as a tool to measure work motivation). Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata 243:43-52.
Chelcea S. (2004) Metodologia cercetării sociologice. Metode cantitative şi calitative. Bucureşti: Editura Economică.
Cook C. Heath F. Thomson R.L. and B. Thomson (2001) Score Reliability in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys: Unnumbered Graphic Rating Scales Versus Likert-Type Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61(4):697-706.
Dawes J. (2008) Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scales Points Used? An Experiment using a 5-point 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 50(1):66-77.
Finn R.H. (1972) Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of rating. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32(2):255-265.
Freyd M. (1923) The Graphic Rating Scale. Journal of Educational Psychology 14(2):83-102.
Kent R. (2007) Marketing Research. Approaches Methods and Applications in Europe. Londra: Thomson.
Komorita S.S. and W.K. Graham (1965) The number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 25(4):987-995.
Krieg Jr. E. (1999) Biases Induced by Coarse Measurement Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(5):749-766.
Gerich J. (2007) Visual Analogue Scales for Mode Independent Measurement in self-Administered Questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods 39(4):985-992.
Likert R. (1932) A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: New York University Press.
Lissitz R.W. and S.B. Green (1975) Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(1):10-13.
Matell M.S. and J. Jacoby (1971) Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 31(3):657-674.
Pitariu H. Vercelino D. şi D. Iliescu (2009) Manual tehnic pentru Testul de Orientare Motivaţională. Cluj-Napoca: Odiseea.
Reips U.D. and F. Funke (2008) Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods 40(3):699-704.
Velicer W.F. and J.F. Stevenson (1978) The Relation Between Item Format and the Structure of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement 2(2):293-304.