Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T06:36:36.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questionable Defeats and Discounted Victories for Likert Rating Scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Christopher J. Waples ,
William S. Weyhrauch ,
Angela R. Connell  and
Satoris S. Culbertson
Christopher J. Waples*
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
William S. Weyhrauch
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Angela R. Connell
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
*
E-mail: cwaples@ksu.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, 558 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506–5302
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 477 - 480
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