反应类别数对评定量表信度效度的影响

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL
Luis M. Lozano, E. García-Cueto, J. Muñiz
{"title":"反应类别数对评定量表信度效度的影响","authors":"Luis M. Lozano, E. García-Cueto, J. Muñiz","doi":"10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Likert-type format is one of the most widely used in all types of scales in the field of social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no definitive agreement on the number of response categories that optimizes the psychometric properties of the scales. The aim of the present work is to determine in a systematic fashion the number of response alternatives that maximizes the fundamental psychometric properties of a scale: reliability and validity. The study is carried out with data simulated using the Monte Carlo method. We simulate responses to 30 items with correlations between them ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. We also manipulate sample size, analyzing four different sizes: 50, 100, 200, and 500 cases. The number of response options employed ranges from two to nine. The results show that as the number of response alternatives increases, both reliability and validity improve. The optimum number of alternatives is between four and seven. With fewer than four alternatives the reliability and validity decrease, an...","PeriodicalId":18476,"journal":{"name":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","volume":"4 1","pages":"73-79"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73","citationCount":"623","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales\",\"authors\":\"Luis M. Lozano, E. García-Cueto, J. Muñiz\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Likert-type format is one of the most widely used in all types of scales in the field of social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no definitive agreement on the number of response categories that optimizes the psychometric properties of the scales. The aim of the present work is to determine in a systematic fashion the number of response alternatives that maximizes the fundamental psychometric properties of a scale: reliability and validity. The study is carried out with data simulated using the Monte Carlo method. We simulate responses to 30 items with correlations between them ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. We also manipulate sample size, analyzing four different sizes: 50, 100, 200, and 500 cases. The number of response options employed ranges from two to nine. The results show that as the number of response alternatives increases, both reliability and validity improve. The optimum number of alternatives is between four and seven. With fewer than four alternatives the reliability and validity decrease, an...\",\"PeriodicalId\":18476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"73-79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73\",\"citationCount\":\"623\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 623

摘要

李克特量表是社会科学领域中应用最广泛的量表之一。然而,对于优化量表的心理测量特性的反应类别的数量并没有明确的共识。本研究的目的是以一种系统的方式确定能最大限度地发挥量表的基本心理测量特性的反应选项的数量:信度和效度。利用蒙特卡罗方法模拟数据进行了研究。我们模拟了对30个项目的反应,它们之间的相关性从0.2到0.9不等。我们还处理了样本量,分析了四种不同的样本量:50、100、200和500例。所采用的回答选项的数量从2到9不等。结果表明,随着选项数的增加,信度和效度都有所提高。选择的最佳数量在4到7之间。当备选方案少于4个时,信度和效度就会下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales
The Likert-type format is one of the most widely used in all types of scales in the field of social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no definitive agreement on the number of response categories that optimizes the psychometric properties of the scales. The aim of the present work is to determine in a systematic fashion the number of response alternatives that maximizes the fundamental psychometric properties of a scale: reliability and validity. The study is carried out with data simulated using the Monte Carlo method. We simulate responses to 30 items with correlations between them ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. We also manipulate sample size, analyzing four different sizes: 50, 100, 200, and 500 cases. The number of response options employed ranges from two to nine. The results show that as the number of response alternatives increases, both reliability and validity improve. The optimum number of alternatives is between four and seven. With fewer than four alternatives the reliability and validity decrease, an...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
16
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
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