Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales

Year 2016, Issue: 55, 1 - 20, 30.10.2016

Oylum Korkut Altuna , F.müge Arslan

https://doi.org/10.17124/iusiyasal.320009
Cited By: 16

Abstract

A remarkable deal of social research is based on data collected through the use of Likerttype scales. The optimal number of response categories in Likert-type scales has been subject to an academic debate for years. This article studies the differences between 5- and 7-point Likert-type scales using the SERVPERF Scale, which was developed by Cronin and Taylor in 1992, as the measuring instrument. A pretest-posttest control group experimental design was used to test whether the differently pointed response categories lead to any statistical differences in data characteristics, dimensional structure of the scale and data fit. Results do not show any statistically significant differences in terms of normality and reliability whereas different dimensional structures are achieved for the 5- and 7-point scale formats of SERVPERF using Exploratory Factor Analysis. ANCOVA results reveal that the number of response categories is not affective on the participants’ evaluations of SERVPERF. The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that the best fit is achieved for the 7-point SERVPERF.

Keywords

Number Of Response Categories In Scales Likert-Type Scale Pretest- Posttest Control Group Experimental Design ANCOVA

References

  • Alford, W.K., Malouff, J.M. & Osland, K.S. (2005). Written Emotional Expression as a Coping Method in Child Protective Services Officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 182-183.
  • Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. (1992). An Emprical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253-268. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(92)90022-4
  • Bearden, W.O., Netmeyer, R.G. & Mobley, M. (1993). Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Bendig, A.W. (1953). The Reliability of Self-ratings as a Function of the Amount of Verbal Anchoring and the Number of Categories on The Scale. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 38-41. doi: 10.1037/h0055647
  • Bendig, A.W. (1954). Reliability and The Number of Rating Scale Categories. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 38-40.
  • Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J.Jr. & Brand, R.R. (2002). Performance-only Measurement of Service Quality: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31.
  • Brown, G.; Wilding, R.E. & Coulter, R.L. (1991). Customer Evaluation of Retail Salespeople Using the SOCO Scale: A Replication Extension and Application. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9, 347-351.
  • Carillat, F.A., Jaramillo, F. & Mulki, J.P. (2007). The Validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF Scales: A Meta-analytical View of 17 Years of Research Across Five Continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490. doi: 10.1108/09564230710826250
  • Chang, L. (1994). A Psychometric Evaluation of Four-point and Six-point Likert-type Scales in Relation to Reliability and Validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 205-215.
  • Choudhury, S. & Bhattacharjee, D. (2014). Optimal Number of Scale Points in Likert Type Scales for Quantifying Compulsive Buying Behaviour. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4(3), 431-440.
  • Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D. & Tyrer, P.J. (1985). The Effect of Number of Rating Scale Categories on Levels of Inter-rater Reliability: A Monte-Carlo Investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 31-36.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Second Edition, New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Colman, A.M., Norris, C.E. & Preston, C.C. (1997). Comparing Rating Scales of Different Lengths: Equivalence of Scores from 5-point and 7-point Scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355-362. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355
  • Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.78.1.98
  • Cox, E.P. (1980). The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
  • Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Cronin, J.J.Jr. & Taylor, A.S.(1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and an Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 243-253.
  • Dawes, J. (2008). Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used?, International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61 – 77. http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Dimitrov, D.M. & Rumrill, Jr., P.D. (2003). Pretest-Posttest Designs and Measurement of Change. Work, 20, 159-165. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/7x9hgpq885t2yttq/
  • Doğan, V., Özkara, B.Y., Yılmaz, C. and Torlak, Ö. (2014). Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısının Veri Karakteristiği ve Veri Kalitesi Kapsamında İncelenmesi: Optimal Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısına İlişkin Bir Çıkarım (An Examination of the Optimal Number of Response Categories in terms of Data Characteristics and Data Quality: An Inference Regarding the Optimal Number of Response Categories). In the Proceedings of the 19th Annual Turkish National Marketing Congress, Gaziantep, TURKEY.
  • Field, A. (2012). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Fourth Edition, London: Sage Publications.
  • Finn, R.H. (1972). Effects of Some Variations in Rating Scale Characteristics on the Means and Reliabilities of Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(7), 255- 265.
  • Garner, W.R. (1960). Rating Scales, Discriminability and Information Transmission. Psychological Review, 67,343-352.
  • Green, J.A. & Rao, V.R. (1970). Rating Scales and Information Recovery: How Many Scales and Response Categories to Use? Journal of Marketing, 34, 33-39.
  • Howell, D.C. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.
  • Huck, S.W. (2008). Reading Statistics and Research. Fifth Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Jain, S.K. & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF Scales. The Journal for Decision Makers, 29(2), 25-37. http://www.vikalpa.com/pdf/ articles/2004/2004_apr_jun_25_37.pdf
  • Janssens, W., Wijnen, K. Pelsmacker, P.D. & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing Research with SPSS. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Jones, R.R. (1968). Differences in Response Consistency and Subjects’ Preferences for Three Personality Inventory Response Formats. In Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 247-248.
  • Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with Simplis Command Language. Scientific Software International.
  • Lai, M., Li, Yongjian & Liu, Y. (2010). Determining the Optimal Scale Width for a Rating Scale Using an Integrated Discrimination Fuction. Measurement, 43, 1458-1471. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2010.08.012
  • Leung, S.O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-,5-,6 and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 412-421. doi:10.1 080/01488376.2011.580697
  • Loken, B., Pirie, P., Virnig, K.A., Hinkle, R.L. & Salmon, C.T. (1987). The Use of 0-10 Scales in Telephone Surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 29(3), 353-362.
  • Lozano, L.M., Garcia-Cueto, E. & Muniz, J. (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
  • Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Sixth Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Marlow, L., Inman, D. & Shwery, C. (2005). To What Extent are Literacy Initiatives Being Supported: Important Questions for Administrators. Reading Improvement, 42(3), 179. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ725388
  • Matell, M.S. & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study 1: Reliability and Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/56/6/506/
  • Morris, S.B. (2008). Estimating Effect Sizes from Pretest – Posttest – Control Group Designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364-386.
  • Oaster, T.R.F. (1989). Number of Alternatives per Choice Point and Stability of Likert-type Scales. Perceptual and Motor Scales, 68, 549-550. doi: 10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.549
  • Osteras, N., Gulbrandsen, P., Garratt, A., Benth, J.S., Dahl, F.A., Natvig, B. & Brage, S. (2008). A Randomised Comparison of a Four and a Five-Point Scale Version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6(14), 1-9. doi: http://www.hqlo.com/content/6/1/14
  • Preston, C.C. & Colman, A.M. (2000). Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power and Respondent Preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
  • Qin, H., Prybutok, V.R. & Zhao, Q. (2010). Perceived Service Quality in Fast-food Restaurants: Empirical Evidince from China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(4) , 424-437. doi: 10.1108/02656711011035129
  • Ramsay, J.O. (1973). The Effect of Number of Categories in Rating Scales on Precision of Estimation of Scale Values. Psychometrika, 38, 513-533. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900103
  • Sallot, L.M. & Lyon, L.J. (2003). Investigating Effects of Tolerance – Intolerence of Ambiguity and the Teaching of Public Relations Writing: A Quasi-Experiment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 58(3), 251-272. doi: 10.1177/107769580305800304
  • Symonds, P.M. (1924). On the Loss of Reliability in Ratings Due to Coarseness of the Scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 456-461. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900103
  • Viswanathan, M., Sudman, S. & Johnson, M. (2004). Maximum versus Meaningful Discrimination in Scale Response: Implications for Validity of Measurement of Consumer Perceptions About Products. Journal of Business Research, 57, 108-124. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00296-X
  • Weathers, D., Sharma, S. & Niedrich, R.W. (2005). The Impact of the Number of Scale Points, Dispositional Factors and the Status Quo Decision Heuristic on Scale Reliability and Response Accuracy. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1516-1524. doi: 10.1016/j. jbusres.2004.08.002
  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The Effect of Rating Scale Format on Response Styles: The Number of Response Categories and Response Category Labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236-247. doi: 10.1016/j. ijresmar.2010.02.004
  • Weng, L.J. (2004). Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956-972. doi: 10.1177/0013164404268674
  • Woodruff, D.J. & Feldt, L.S. (1986). Tests for Equality of Several Alpha Coefficients When Their Sample Estimates are Dependent. Psychometrika, 51, 393-413. http://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02294063
  • Zhou, L. (2004). A Dimension-specific Analysis of Performance-Only Measurement of Service Quality and Satisfaction in China’s Retail Banking. The Journal of Services Marketing, 18(6/7), 534-546. doi: 10.1108/08876040410561866

Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales

Year 2016, Issue: 55, 1 - 20, 30.10.2016

Oylum Korkut Altuna , F.müge Arslan

https://doi.org/10.17124/iusiyasal.320009
Cited By: 16

Abstract

A remarkable deal of social research is based on data collected through the use of Likerttype scales. The optimal number of response categories in Likert-type scales has been subject to an academic debate for years. This article studies the differences between 5- and 7-point Likert-type scales using the SERVPERF Scale, which was developed by Cronin and Taylor in 1992, as the measuring instrument. A pretest-posttest control group experimental design was used to test whether the differently pointed response categories lead to any statistical differences in data characteristics, dimensional structure of the scale and data fit. Results do not show any statistically significant differences in terms of normality and reliability whereas different dimensional structures are achieved for the 5- and 7-point scale formats of SERVPERF using Exploratory Factor Analysis. ANCOVA results reveal that the number of response categories is not affective on the participants’ evaluations of SERVPERF. The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that the best fit is achieved for the 7-point SERVPERF.

Keywords

Number Of Response Categories In Scales Likert-Type Scale ANCOVA SERVPERF Pretest Posttest Control Group Experimental Design

References

  • Alford, W.K., Malouff, J.M. & Osland, K.S. (2005). Written Emotional Expression as a Coping Method in Child Protective Services Officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 182-183.
  • Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. (1992). An Emprical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253-268. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(92)90022-4
  • Bearden, W.O., Netmeyer, R.G. & Mobley, M. (1993). Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Bendig, A.W. (1953). The Reliability of Self-ratings as a Function of the Amount of Verbal Anchoring and the Number of Categories on The Scale. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 38-41. doi: 10.1037/h0055647
  • Bendig, A.W. (1954). Reliability and The Number of Rating Scale Categories. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 38-40.
  • Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J.Jr. & Brand, R.R. (2002). Performance-only Measurement of Service Quality: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31.
  • Brown, G.; Wilding, R.E. & Coulter, R.L. (1991). Customer Evaluation of Retail Salespeople Using the SOCO Scale: A Replication Extension and Application. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9, 347-351.
  • Carillat, F.A., Jaramillo, F. & Mulki, J.P. (2007). The Validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF Scales: A Meta-analytical View of 17 Years of Research Across Five Continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490. doi: 10.1108/09564230710826250
  • Chang, L. (1994). A Psychometric Evaluation of Four-point and Six-point Likert-type Scales in Relation to Reliability and Validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 205-215.
  • Choudhury, S. & Bhattacharjee, D. (2014). Optimal Number of Scale Points in Likert Type Scales for Quantifying Compulsive Buying Behaviour. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4(3), 431-440.
  • Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D. & Tyrer, P.J. (1985). The Effect of Number of Rating Scale Categories on Levels of Inter-rater Reliability: A Monte-Carlo Investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 31-36.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Second Edition, New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Colman, A.M., Norris, C.E. & Preston, C.C. (1997). Comparing Rating Scales of Different Lengths: Equivalence of Scores from 5-point and 7-point Scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355-362. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355
  • Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.78.1.98
  • Cox, E.P. (1980). The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
  • Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Cronin, J.J.Jr. & Taylor, A.S.(1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and an Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 243-253.
  • Dawes, J. (2008). Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used?, International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61 – 77. http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Dimitrov, D.M. & Rumrill, Jr., P.D. (2003). Pretest-Posttest Designs and Measurement of Change. Work, 20, 159-165. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/7x9hgpq885t2yttq/
  • Doğan, V., Özkara, B.Y., Yılmaz, C. and Torlak, Ö. (2014). Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısının Veri Karakteristiği ve Veri Kalitesi Kapsamında İncelenmesi: Optimal Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısına İlişkin Bir Çıkarım (An Examination of the Optimal Number of Response Categories in terms of Data Characteristics and Data Quality: An Inference Regarding the Optimal Number of Response Categories). In the Proceedings of the 19th Annual Turkish National Marketing Congress, Gaziantep, TURKEY.
  • Field, A. (2012). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Fourth Edition, London: Sage Publications.
  • Finn, R.H. (1972). Effects of Some Variations in Rating Scale Characteristics on the Means and Reliabilities of Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(7), 255- 265.
  • Garner, W.R. (1960). Rating Scales, Discriminability and Information Transmission. Psychological Review, 67,343-352.
  • Green, J.A. & Rao, V.R. (1970). Rating Scales and Information Recovery: How Many Scales and Response Categories to Use? Journal of Marketing, 34, 33-39.
  • Howell, D.C. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.
  • Huck, S.W. (2008). Reading Statistics and Research. Fifth Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Jain, S.K. & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF Scales. The Journal for Decision Makers, 29(2), 25-37. http://www.vikalpa.com/pdf/ articles/2004/2004_apr_jun_25_37.pdf
  • Janssens, W., Wijnen, K. Pelsmacker, P.D. & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing Research with SPSS. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Jones, R.R. (1968). Differences in Response Consistency and Subjects’ Preferences for Three Personality Inventory Response Formats. In Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 247-248.
  • Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with Simplis Command Language. Scientific Software International.
  • Lai, M., Li, Yongjian & Liu, Y. (2010). Determining the Optimal Scale Width for a Rating Scale Using an Integrated Discrimination Fuction. Measurement, 43, 1458-1471. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2010.08.012
  • Leung, S.O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-,5-,6 and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 412-421. doi:10.1 080/01488376.2011.580697
  • Loken, B., Pirie, P., Virnig, K.A., Hinkle, R.L. & Salmon, C.T. (1987). The Use of 0-10 Scales in Telephone Surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 29(3), 353-362.
  • Lozano, L.M., Garcia-Cueto, E. & Muniz, J. (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
  • Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Sixth Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Marlow, L., Inman, D. & Shwery, C. (2005). To What Extent are Literacy Initiatives Being Supported: Important Questions for Administrators. Reading Improvement, 42(3), 179. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ725388
  • Matell, M.S. & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study 1: Reliability and Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/56/6/506/
  • Morris, S.B. (2008). Estimating Effect Sizes from Pretest – Posttest – Control Group Designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364-386.
  • Oaster, T.R.F. (1989). Number of Alternatives per Choice Point and Stability of Likert-type Scales. Perceptual and Motor Scales, 68, 549-550. doi: 10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.549
  • Osteras, N., Gulbrandsen, P., Garratt, A., Benth, J.S., Dahl, F.A., Natvig, B. & Brage, S. (2008). A Randomised Comparison of a Four and a Five-Point Scale Version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6(14), 1-9. doi: http://www.hqlo.com/content/6/1/14
  • Preston, C.C. & Colman, A.M. (2000). Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power and Respondent Preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
  • Qin, H., Prybutok, V.R. & Zhao, Q. (2010). Perceived Service Quality in Fast-food Restaurants: Empirical Evidince from China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(4) , 424-437. doi: 10.1108/02656711011035129
  • Ramsay, J.O. (1973). The Effect of Number of Categories in Rating Scales on Precision of Estimation of Scale Values. Psychometrika, 38, 513-533. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900103
  • Sallot, L.M. & Lyon, L.J. (2003). Investigating Effects of Tolerance – Intolerence of Ambiguity and the Teaching of Public Relations Writing: A Quasi-Experiment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 58(3), 251-272. doi: 10.1177/107769580305800304
  • Symonds, P.M. (1924). On the Loss of Reliability in Ratings Due to Coarseness of the Scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 456-461. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900103
  • Viswanathan, M., Sudman, S. & Johnson, M. (2004). Maximum versus Meaningful Discrimination in Scale Response: Implications for Validity of Measurement of Consumer Perceptions About Products. Journal of Business Research, 57, 108-124. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00296-X
  • Weathers, D., Sharma, S. & Niedrich, R.W. (2005). The Impact of the Number of Scale Points, Dispositional Factors and the Status Quo Decision Heuristic on Scale Reliability and Response Accuracy. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1516-1524. doi: 10.1016/j. jbusres.2004.08.002
  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The Effect of Rating Scale Format on Response Styles: The Number of Response Categories and Response Category Labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236-247. doi: 10.1016/j. ijresmar.2010.02.004
  • Weng, L.J. (2004). Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956-972. doi: 10.1177/0013164404268674
  • Woodruff, D.J. & Feldt, L.S. (1986). Tests for Equality of Several Alpha Coefficients When Their Sample Estimates are Dependent. Psychometrika, 51, 393-413. http://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02294063
  • Zhou, L. (2004). A Dimension-specific Analysis of Performance-Only Measurement of Service Quality and Satisfaction in China’s Retail Banking. The Journal of Services Marketing, 18(6/7), 534-546. doi: 10.1108/08876040410561866
There are 51 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Political Science
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Oylum Korkut Altuna

F.müge Arslan

Publication Date October 30, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Issue: 55

Cite

APA Korkut Altuna, O., & Arslan, F. (2016). Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi(55), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17124/iusiyasal.320009
AMA Korkut Altuna O, Arslan F. Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi. October 2016;(55):1-20. doi:10.17124/iusiyasal.320009
Chicago Korkut Altuna, Oylum, and F.müge Arslan. “Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-Type Scales”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 55 (October 2016): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17124/iusiyasal.320009.
EndNote Korkut Altuna O, Arslan F (October 1, 2016) Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 55 1–20.
IEEE O. Korkut Altuna and F. Arslan, “Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 55, pp. 1–20, October 2016, doi: 10.17124/iusiyasal.320009.
ISNAD Korkut Altuna, Oylum - Arslan, F.müge. “Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-Type Scales”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 55 (October 2016), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17124/iusiyasal.320009.
JAMA Korkut Altuna O, Arslan F. Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;:1–20.
MLA Korkut Altuna, Oylum and F.müge Arslan. “Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-Type Scales”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 55, 2016, pp. 1-20, doi:10.17124/iusiyasal.320009.
Vancouver Korkut Altuna O, Arslan F. Impact of the Number of Scale Points on Data Characteristics and Respondents’ Evaluations: An Experimental Design Approach Using 5-Point and 7-Point Likert-type Scales. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016(55):1-20.

Cited By

Customer empowerment and engagement on sharing platform in the retailing sector: testing the mediating effects of service innovation and platform trust
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00431-2
Measuring is knowing - Evaluating patients’ experienced usability of and satisfaction with digital health solutions for self-management: validation of the GEMS questionnaire (Preprint)
JMIR Medical Informatics
https://doi.org/10.2196/63703
The effect of social media engagement on social integration of elderly migrants in China: the mechanism of perceived social support and psychological resilience
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03622-0
Investigating Physicians’ Adoption of Telemedicine in Romania Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Healthcare
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12151531
Socio-demographic and cross-country differences in attention to sustainable certifications and changes in food consumption
npj Science of Food
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00274-x
Residents' perceived social sustainability of food tourism events
Tourism Management Perspectives
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101276
Measurement of humanity among interns of Internal Medicine Department, Damascus University: a cross-sectional study
International Journal of Surgery: Global Health
https://doi.org/10.1097/GH9.0000000000000454
Fabric perceptions in digital contexts: exploring the correlation between certainty and accuracy
Fashion and Textiles
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-024-00387-7
Please tell me how sustainable you are, and I’ll tell you how much I value you! The impact of young consumers’ motivations on luxury fashion
Cogent Business & Management
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2287786
Deneysel Araştırma Tasarımı ve Pazarlama Araştırmalarında Deneysel Araştırma Tasarımı Kullanan Yayınların İncelenmesi
TroyAcademy
https://doi.org/10.31454/troyacademy.1235967
Measurement of Humanity Among Health Professionals: Development and Validation of the Medical Humanity Scale Using the Delphi Method
JMIR Formative Research
https://doi.org/10.2196/44241
Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review
International Journal of Educational Methodology
https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
Perceptions of performativity in English Further Education
Research in Post-Compulsory Education
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2021.2011518
POWER DISTANCE AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB SATISFACTION
International Journal of Management Studies
https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms.28.1.2021.9974
Design and Development of an Interactive Web-Based Simulator for Trauma Training: A Pilot Study
Journal of Medical Systems
Blanca Larraga-García
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-021-01767-y
Design and Development of a Hemorrhagic Trauma Simulator for Lower Limbs: A Pilot Study
Sensors
Blanca Larraga-García
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21113816
 Download Cover Image