A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies

D. Andrich
{"title":"A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies","authors":"D. Andrich","doi":"10.1111/J.2044-8317.1996.TB01093.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 1920s, Thurstone articulated a theory for the measurement of social variables that involved two distinct steps: first constructing and operationalizing a linear continuum by locating statements according to their affective values; second measuring persons. The first step involved the pair-comparison design and the cumulative response mechanism, the second step involved the direct-response design (of the form Agree or Disagree) and the unfolding response mechanism. In the 1930s, Likert proposed a procedure that obviated the need for the first step and apparently permitted measuring persons from their responses to statements that were similar to those used by Thurstone, but which required a response that indicated degrees of intensity of the form Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree or Strongly Disagree. Furthermore, and in contrast to Thurstone, he implicitly used the cumulative mechanism, scoring the successive categories with successive integers and simply summing them to obtain a measurement for each person. The two procedures were considered to be distinct and alternative, and in general, this is still the perception with a number of matters still not reconciled between the two procedures. \n \nBy resolving the Disagree response in the unfolding mechanism into its two constituent components, this paper presents an unfolding model for direct responses from first principles, and then generalises it to provide an unfolding model for polytomous responses of the Likert style. This model permits an understanding of those matters still not reconciled between the Thurstone and Likert approaches: First, Likert's success in using Thurstone-like statements with the cumulative mechanism rather than the unfolding mechanism; second, the gap found between two clusters of locations when statements from a Likert-style questionnaire are scaled using the Thurstone procedure; and third, the consistent problem with the middle category of Undecided in Likert-style response formats.","PeriodicalId":229922,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"117","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8317.1996.TB01093.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 117

Abstract

In the 1920s, Thurstone articulated a theory for the measurement of social variables that involved two distinct steps: first constructing and operationalizing a linear continuum by locating statements according to their affective values; second measuring persons. The first step involved the pair-comparison design and the cumulative response mechanism, the second step involved the direct-response design (of the form Agree or Disagree) and the unfolding response mechanism. In the 1930s, Likert proposed a procedure that obviated the need for the first step and apparently permitted measuring persons from their responses to statements that were similar to those used by Thurstone, but which required a response that indicated degrees of intensity of the form Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree or Strongly Disagree. Furthermore, and in contrast to Thurstone, he implicitly used the cumulative mechanism, scoring the successive categories with successive integers and simply summing them to obtain a measurement for each person. The two procedures were considered to be distinct and alternative, and in general, this is still the perception with a number of matters still not reconciled between the two procedures. By resolving the Disagree response in the unfolding mechanism into its two constituent components, this paper presents an unfolding model for direct responses from first principles, and then generalises it to provide an unfolding model for polytomous responses of the Likert style. This model permits an understanding of those matters still not reconciled between the Thurstone and Likert approaches: First, Likert's success in using Thurstone-like statements with the cumulative mechanism rather than the unfolding mechanism; second, the gap found between two clusters of locations when statements from a Likert-style questionnaire are scaled using the Thurstone procedure; and third, the consistent problem with the middle category of Undecided in Likert-style response formats.
展开多重反应的双曲余弦潜特征模型:调和Thurstone和Likert方法
在20世纪20年代,瑟斯通阐述了一种测量社会变量的理论,该理论涉及两个不同的步骤:首先通过根据情感价值定位陈述来构建和操作线性连续体;第二,测量人。第一步包括配对比较设计和累积反应机制,第二步包括直接反应设计(同意或不同意形式)和展开反应机制。在20世纪30年代,Likert提出了一个程序,消除了第一步的需要,显然允许从人们对类似Thurstone所使用的陈述的反应来衡量人们,但这需要一个反应,表明强烈同意,同意,未决定,不同意或强烈不同意的程度。此外,与瑟斯通相反,他含蓄地使用了累积机制,用连续整数对连续类别进行评分,然后简单地将它们相加,以获得每个人的测量值。这两种程序被认为是不同的和可选择的,总的来说,这仍然是对两种程序之间仍未协调的一些事项的看法。通过将展开机制中的不同意响应分解为其两个组成部分,本文提出了第一原则直接响应的展开模型,然后将其推广为李克特风格的多同构响应的展开模型。这个模型允许我们理解Thurstone和Likert方法之间仍未调和的问题:首先,Likert成功地将Thurstone-like语句与累积机制而不是展开机制结合起来;其次,当李克特式问卷的陈述使用瑟斯通程序进行缩放时,两个位置集群之间的差距;第三,在李克特式的回答格式中,与中间类别“未决定”的一致性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信