Article contents
Questionable Defeats and Discounted Victories for Likert Rating Scales
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 January 2015
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010
Footnotes
*
Department of Psychology, Kansas State University.
The authors would like to thank Patrick Knight for his comments on an earlier version of this commentary.
References
Andrich, D. (1996). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 347–365.
Google Scholar
Barclay, J. E., & Weaver, H. B. (1962). Comparative reliabilities and ease of construction of Thurstone and Likert attitude scales.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 109–120.
Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right!
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 465–476.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. L., & Kenney, K. C. (1946). A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 72–83. doi: 10.1037/h0062418Google Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives of Psychology, 22, 1–55.
Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.
Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x. 7.1.19Google Scholar
Poppleton, P. K., & Pilkington, G. W. (1963). A comparison of four methods of scoring an attitude scale in relation to its reliability and validity.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 36–39.
Google Scholar
Rhoads, R. F., & Landy, F. J. (1973). Measurement of attitudes of industrial work groups toward psychology and testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 197–201. doi: 10-1037/h0035653Google Scholar
Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211–233. doi: 10.1177/00131649921969811Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by