Ítems tipo Likert vs. Ítems continuos: ¿Qué opción es mejor?

  1. Jaime García-Fernández 1
  2. Marcelino Cuesta 1
  3. Álvaro Postigo 1
  4. Álvaro Menéndez-Aller 1
  5. Covadonga González-Nuevo 1
  6. Eduardo García-Cueto 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Zeitschrift:
Revista internacional de sociología

ISSN: 0034-9712

Datum der Publikation: 2024

Ausgabe: 82

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 1-10

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.3989/RIS.2024.82.2.M23-04 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Revista internacional de sociología

Zusammenfassung

Likert-type items are commonly used in social science research. This study explores if changing the response format of a scale could improve its psychometric properties. The compared response formats were the five-point Likert scale and the VAS (Visual Analog Scale). 584 participants (75.2 % women) with a mean age of 32.9 ages (SD = 13.4) answered an online survey VAS with two personality questionnaires that were applied twice, one with Likert items (0-4) and another with VAS items (0-100). Discrimination indexes, reliability, and factor loadings from scales with the Likert response format were higher than the ones found in the VAS scales. The response format did not affect the factorial structure of the scales. The VAS response format scales gave higher scores than the Likert response format scales. Although Likert response format showed better properties, this result may have been influenced by the line length of the VAS scale.

€ Finanzierung ansehen

Informationen zur Finanzierung

Geldgeber

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Benítez, Isabel, Fons Van De Vijver y José Luis Padilla. 2022. “A Mixed Methods Approach to the Analysis of Bias in Cross-Cultural Studies”. Sociological Methods & Research 51(1): 237-70. doi: 10.1177/0049124119852390.
  • Bijur, Polly E., Wendy Silver y John E. Gallagher. 2001. “Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute Pain”. Academic Emergency Medicine 8(12): 1153-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.
  • Briesch, Amy M., Stephen P. Kilgus, Sandra M. Chafouleas, T. Chris Riley-Tillman y Theodore J. Christ. 2013. “The Influence of Alternative Scale Formats on the Generalizability of Data Obtained From Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales (DBR-SIS)”. Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(2): 127-33. doi: 10.1177/1534508412441966.
  • Buskirk, Trent D. 2015. “Are Sliders Too Slick for Surveys? An Experiment Comparing Slider and Radio Button Scales for Smartphone, Tablet and Computer Based Surveys”. Methods, Data, Analyses 9(2): 229-60. doi: 10.12758/MDA.2015.013.
  • Carifio, James y Rocco Perla. 2008. “Resolving the 50-Year Debate Around Using and Misusing Likert Scales”. Medical Education 42(12): 1150-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x.
  • Carifio, James y Rocco J. Perla. 2007. “Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes”. Journal of Social Sciences 3(3): 106-16. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116.
  • Christian, Leah Melani, Nicholas L. Parsons y Don A. Dillman. 2009. “Designing Scalar Questions for Web Surveys”. Sociological Methods & Research 37(3): 393-425. doi: 10.1177/0049124108330004.
  • Cohen, Jacob. 1992. “A power primer”. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155-59. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
  • Consejo General de la Psicología de España. 2015. Código Deontológico del Psicólogo. Consultado el 8 de febrero de 2024 (https://www.cop.es/index.php?page=CodigoDeontologico).
  • Cook, Colleen, Fred Heath, Russel L. Thompson y Bruce Thompson. 2001. “Score Reliability in Webor Internet-Based Surveys: Unnumbered Graphic Rating Scales versus Likert-Type Scales”. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61(4): 697-706. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971356.
  • Couper, Mick P., Roger Tourangeau, Frederick G. Conrad y Eleanor Singer. 2006. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Visual Analog Scales: A Web Experiment”. Social Science Computer Review 24(2): 227-45. doi: 10.1177/0894439305281503.
  • Cox, Eli P. 1980. “The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review”. Journal of Marketing Research 17(4): 407-22. doi: 10.2307/3150495.
  • Feldt, Leonard S. 1980. “A Test of the Hypothesis That Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient Is the Same for Two Tests Administered to the Same Sample”. Psychometrika 45(1): 99-105. doi: 10.1007/BF02293600.
  • Freyd, Max. 1923. “The Graphic Rating Scale”. Journal of Educational Psychology 14(2): 83-102. doi: 10.1037/h0074329.
  • Fuentealba Carrasco, Pablo Javier y Omar A. Barriga. 2017. “Primera aproximación a la construcción de una Escala de Adhesión a los Principios del Derecho Penal (EAPDP). Estudio piloto en el Conurbano del Gran Concepción, Chile”. Revista Internacional de Sociología 75(2): e060. doi: 10.3989/ris.2017.75.2.15.103.
  • Funke, Frederik. 2016. “A Web Experiment Showing Negative Effects of Slider Scales Compared to Visual Analogue Scales and Radio Button Scales”. Social Science Computer Review 34(2): 244-54. doi: 10.1177/0894439315575477.
  • Funke, Frederik y Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2006. “Visual Analogue Scales in Online Surveys: Non-Linear Data Categorization by Transformation with Reduced Extremes”. Presentado en General Online Research Conference, Bielefeld.
  • Funke, Frederik y Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2012. “Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should Be Made from Visual Analogue Scales and Not from 5-Point Scales”. Field Methods 24(3): 310-27. doi: 10.1177/1525822X12444061.
  • García-Cueto, Eduardo 1994. “Coeficiente de Congruencia”. Psicothema 6(3): 465-68.
  • Gómez-Leal, Raquel, Alberto Megías-Robles, María José Gutiérrez-Cobo, Rosario Cabello, Enrique G. Fernández-Abascal y Pablo Fernández-Berrocal. 2021. “Spanish Adaptation and Validation of the 34-Item Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP)”. Journal of Personality Disorders 35(2): 217-35. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2019_33_434.
  • Guyatt, Gordon H., Marie Townsend, Leslie B. Berman y Jana L. Keller. 1987. “A Comparison of Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for Measuring Change in Function”. Journal of Chronic Diseases 40(12): 1129-33. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90080-4.
  • Hasson, Dan y Bengt B. Arnetz. 2005. “Validation and Findings Comparing VAS Vs. Likert Scales for Psychosocial Measurements”. International Electronic Journal of Health Education 8: 178-92.
  • Hayes, Marry H.S. y Donald G. Patterson. 1921. “Experimental Development of the Graphic Rating Method”. Psychological Bulletin 18(2): 98-99. doi: 10.1037/h0064147.
  • Hilbert, Sven, Helmut Küchenhoff, Nina Sarubin, Tristan T. Nakagawa y Markus Bühner. 2016. “The Influence of the Response Format in a Personality Questionnaire: An Analysis of a Dichotomous, a Likert-Type, and a Visual Analogue Scale”. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 23(1): 3-24. doi: 10.4473/TPM23.1.1.
  • Huang-Isherwood, Ke M., Steffie S.Y. Kim, Dmitri Williams y Alexander J. Bisberg. 2022. “Las mujeres sostienen (más de) la mitad del cielo: examinando las motivaciones, los comportamientos y el capital social en un juego multijugador popular entre las jugadoras”. Revista Internacional de Sociología 80(4): e219. doi: 10.3989/ris.2022.80.4.M22-003.
  • Jamieson, Susan. 2004. “Likert Scales: How to (Ab)Use Them”. Medical Education 38(12): 1217-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x.
  • Knapp, Thomas R. 1990. “Treating Ordinal Scales as Interval Scales: An Attempt To Resolve the Controversy”. Nursing Research 39(2): 121-23. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199003000-00019.
  • Krieg, Edward F. 1999. “Biases Induced by Coarse Measurement Scales”. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(5): 749-66. doi: 10.1177/00131649921970125.
  • Kronsick, Jon A. y Leandre R. Fabrigar. 1997. “Designing Rating Scales for Effective Measurement in Surveys” Pp. 141-164 . en Survey Measurement and Process Quality, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, editado por Lars Lyberg, Paul Biemer, Martin Collins, Edith De Leeuw, Cathryn Dippo, Norbert Schwarz, y Dennis Trewin. New York: John Wiley.
  • Kuhlmann, Tim, Michael Dantlgraber y Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2017. “Investigating Measurement Equivalence of Visual Analogue Scales and Likert-Type Scales in Internet-Based Personality Questionnaires”. Behavior Research Methods 49(6): 2173-81. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0850-x.
  • Kuzon, William M., Melanie G. Urbanchek y Steven McCabe. 1996. “The Seven Deadly Sins of Statistical Analysis”. Annals of Plastic Surgery 37(3): 265-72. Doi: 10.1097/00000637-199609000-00006.
  • Leung, Shing-On. 2011. “A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales”. Journal of Social Service Research 37(4): 412-21. Doi: 10.1080/01488376.2011.580697.
  • Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales. 2018. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 294: 119788-119857. Available at: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2018/12/05/3.
  • Likert, Rensis. 1932. “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes”. Archives of Psychology 22(140): 5-55.
  • Lord, Frederic M. 1953. “On the Statistical Treatment of Football Numbers”. American Psychologist 8(12): 750-51. Doi: 10.1037/h0063675.
  • Lord, Frederic M., Melvin R. Novick y Allan Birnbaum. 1968. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Nachdr. Der Ausg. Reading, Mass. [u.a.]. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publ.
  • Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano y Pere J. Ferrando. 2006. “Factor: A Computer Program to Fit the Exploratory Factor Analysis Model”. Behavior Research Methods 38(1): 88-91. Doi: 10.3758/BF03192753.
  • Lozano, Luis M., Eduardo García-Cueto y José Muñiz. 2008. “Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales”. Methodology 4(2): 73-79. Doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73.
  • Matejka, Justin, Michael Glueck, Tovi Grossman y George Fitzmaurice. 2016. “The Effect of Visual Appearance on the Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales”. Pp. 5421-32 in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, editado por Jofish Kaye, Allison Druin, Cliff Lampe, Dan Morris, Juan P. Hourcade, Loren Terveen, Scooter Morris. San Jose California USA: ACM.
  • Myles, Paul S. y Nicole Urquhart. 2005. “The Linearity of the Visual Analogue Scale in Patients with Severe Acute Pain”. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 33(1): 54-58. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0503300108.
  • Myles, Paul S., Sally Troedel, Michael Boquest y Mark Reeves. 1999. “The Pain Visual Analog Scale: Is It Linear or Nonlinear?”. Anesthesia & Analgesia 89(6): 1517-20. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199912000-00038.
  • Pell, Godfrey. 2005. “Use and Misuse of Likert Scales”. Medical Education 39(9): 970-970. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02237.x.
  • Pineda, David, Bonifacio Sandín y Peter Muris. 2020. “Psychometrics properties of the Spanish version of two Dark Triad scales: The Dirty Dozen and the Short Dark Triad”. Current Psychology 39(5): 1873-81. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9888-5.
  • Preston, Carolyn C. y Andrew M. Colman. 2000. “Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences”. Acta Psychologica 104(1): 1-15. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.
  • R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Reips, Ulf-Dietrich y Frederik Funke. 2008. “Interval-Level Measurement with Visual Analogue Scales in Internet-Based Research: VAS Generator”. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 699-704. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.699.
  • Roncero, María, Gertrudis Fornés y Amparo Belloch. 2013. “Hexaco: Una nueva aproximación a la evaluación de la personalidad en español”. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica XXII(3): 205-217.
  • Roster, Catherine A., Lorenzo Lucianetti y Gerald Albaum. 2015. “Exploring Slider vs. Categorical Response Formats in Web-Based Surveys”. Journal of Research Practice 11(1): preprint 1.
  • Schoene, Matthew. 2019. “European Disintegration? Euroscepticism and Europe’s Rural/Urban Divide”. European Politics and Society 20(3): 348-64. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1542768.
  • Schwarz, Norbert. 1999. “Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers”. American Psychologist 54(2): 93-105. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93.
  • Simms, Leonard J., Kerry Zelazny, Trevor F. Williams y Lee Bernstein. 2019. “Does the Number of Response Options Matter? Psychometric Perspectives Using Personality Questionnaire Data”. Psychological Assessment 31(4):557-66. doi: 10.1037/pas0000648.
  • Stevens, Stanley S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement”. Science 103(2684): 677-80. doi: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677.
  • Stoica, Cătălin Augustin y Radu Umbreș. 2021. “Suspicious Minds in Times of Crisis: Determinants of Romanians’ Beliefs in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories”. European Societies 23(sup1): S246-61. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2020.1823450.
  • Svensson, Elisabeth. 2000. “Comparison of the Quality of Assessments Using Continuous and Discrete Ordinal Rating Scales”. Biometrical Journal 42(4): 417-34. doi: 10.1002/1521-4036(200008)42:4<417::AID-BIMJ417>3.0.CO;2-Z.
  • Toland, Michael D., Caihong Li, Jonathan Kodet y Robert J. Reese. 2021. “Psychometric Properties of the Outcome Rating Scale: An Item Response Theory Analysis”. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 54(2): 90-105. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2020.1745647.
  • Van Laerhoven, H., Hj van der Zaag-Loonen y Bhf Derkx. 2004. “A Comparison of Likert Scale and Visual Analogue Scales as Response Options in Children’s Questionnaires”. Acta Paediatrica 93(6): 830-35. Doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb03026.x.
  • Voutilainen, Ari, Taina Pitkäaho, Tarja Kvist y Katri Vehviläinen-Julkunen. 2016. “How to Ask About Patient Satisfaction? The Visual Analogue Scale Is Less Vulnerable to Confounding Factors and Ceiling Effect Than a Symmetric Likert Scale”. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(4): 946-57. doi: 10.1111/jan.12875.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet