Likert Scales, likert scales, LIKERT SCALES.

1. LIKERT SCALES
Likert Scales
1

2. LIKERT SCALES
Likert Scales: Dispelling the Confusion
Summary: Here's the bottom line for the busy reader. Over time and in common usage, the
term, "Likert scale" has come to be applied to things far removed from its original meaning.
Most importantly:
• A Likert scale is a multi-item scale, not a single item. A single item, regardless of its
format, should not be called a Likert scale.
• A Likert item, which is a single item or question, should adhere to certain format
requirements. An item that is merely ordered-categorical, even if it is combined with
similar items in a composite scale, should not be called a Likert item or a Likert-type
item. The term, discrete visual analog scale (DVAS) is more generic and an
alternative in many cases.
• An item with ordered response levels but which has neither a Likert nor a DVAS
format should simply be called an ordered-category item.
• A scale composed of several ordered-category items which are not Likert items should
be referred to by the more generic name, summated rating scale.
Nature of the problem
People have gradually come to use the term, "Likert scale" in very different ways. It is
variously applied it to both groups of items and to single items, and in either case there is
disagreement about what specific formats apply.
This is a not good in general, since we would like mutually agreed-on definitions. Otherwise
if a researcher says, "We used a Likert scale" it isn't clear what's meant.
Further, there is lack of consensus about what statistical methods are appropriate for this class
of variables. This is an important matter because such variables are often used in serious
applications like clinical trials. To make headway on the issue of what statistical methods are
appropriate for such variables (and this is the subject of some degree of controversy), we must
first agree on terms.
The Origin of Likert Scales
Likert scales were originally developed by Rensis Likert, a sociologist at the University of
Michigan from 1946 to 1970. Likert was concerned with measuring psychological attitudes,
and wished to do this in a "scientific" way. Specifically, he sought a method that would
produce attitude measures that could reasonably be interpreted as measurements on a proper
metric scale, in the same sense that we consider inches or degrees Celsius true measurement
scales.
Other social scientists, such as Thurstone, had already developed sophisticated methods for
measurement of psychological phenomena, but these were unsuited for Likert's attitude
research. Likert, after trying various alternatives, gradually developed what we now call
Likert scales.
2

3. LIKERT SCALES
Likert used a number of specific techniques to first generate items, and then select from
among them those that were valid, unidimensional (all measuring a common trait), and well
discriminating. For example, he sometimes used judges to rate items' quality or content. All of
these methods collectively go into what is formally called Likert scaling. Without failing to
appreciate Likert's contributions to the science of scaling, we use the term "Likert scale" in a
somewhat broader sense here to include basically any scale composed of Likert or Likert-type
items. That is, we distinguish between Likert scaling and Likert scales, the former term being
more specific. (We thereby avoid having to introduce yet another category, Likert-type
scales.)
Once constructed, Likert's scales had a format like this:
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of these
statements:
Neither
agree
Strongly Somewhat nor Somewhat Strongly
disagree disagree disagree agree agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The president is 1 2 3 4 5
doing a good job.
The Congress is 1 2 3 4 5
doing a good job.
The Secretary of 1 2 3 4 5
Defense is doing a
good job.
Example 1. A Likert scale
Here the construct being measured might be attitude towards American politics.
By Likert's method, a person's attitude is measured by combining (adding or averaging) their
responses across all items. This summing or averaging across several items was essential for
Likert to contribute to genuine measurement.
We note several characteristics or features that define a Likert scale:
1. The scale contains several items.
2. Response levels are arranged horizontally.
3. Response levels are anchored with consecutive integers.
4. Response levels are also anchored with verbal labels which connote
more-or-less evenly-spaced gradations.
5. Verbal labels are bivalent and symmetrical about a neutral middle
and
6. In Likert's usage, the scale always measures attitude in terms of level of
agreement/disagreement to a target statement (but see below)
3

4. LIKERT SCALES
Criterion 5 usually means there is an odd number of response levels. Typically the number is
5, though sometimes 7, 9, or 11 levels are used.
Only a scale with all these characteristics might qualify as a genuine Likert scale. We
probably don't want to be that strict, however. In particular, it seems reasonable to apply
Likert's methodology to domains other than attitude measurement. The view recommended
here is that features 1-4 above comprise the main requirements for what can be
accurately termed a Likert scale.
This much said, we now address two of the biggest and most common confusions people
make. First:
Common Error 1
A Likert scale is never an individual item; it is always a
set of several items, with specific format features, the
responses to which are added or averaged to produce an
overall score or measurement.
A single item, even if formatted exactly as one of Likert's items, is not a Likert scale.
The confusion is understandable, however, since each item of a Likert scale itself has scale-
like appearance. But these are definitely to be distinguished from the Likert scale proper,
which is made up of the entire set of items.
Likert items
The question then arises: so what *should* we call single items of this kind? Is there a term
by which we may distinguish them from other kinds of items, such as ordinary multiple
choice ones?
If features 2 through 5 above are all present, we may justifiably call them Likert items. If only
2 through 4 are present, we might call them Likert-type items instead.
How do you feel about the President's performance in domestic
affairs?
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
disapprove disapprove Neutral approve approve
1 2 3 4 5
Example 2: A Likert item
Consider the example above. Here we meet all criteria 2 - 5. It seems fair to call this a Likert
item, even though it doesn't refer to agreement/disagreement to a target statement.
How far can we legitimately broaden the definition? This is a judgment call on the part of the
researcher. It is this writer's opinion that only criterion 5--that the anchor labels be bivalent
4

5. LIKERT SCALES
(distinctly two-directional) and symmetrical--may be relaxed, and then this produces a Likert-
type item. Without conditions 2-4 the item is basically not Likert-type in any sense.
The following, then, would be considered a Likert-type item.
How often do you go out to see a movie?
Very
Never Sometimes Average Often often
1 2 3 4 5
Example 3: A Likert-type item
Here the response levels are not bivalent: the lower terminus is merely "Never". There is no
exact opposite of "Very often". Yet the categories are reasonably interpretable as evenly
spaced, especially when associated with consecutive integers in an evenly-spaced printed
format. The label for level 3, "Average" clearly denotes centrality of this response category.
Similarly, we seem reasonably justified in permitting an even number of response levels, and,
along with this, that there not be an exact middle or neutral category--provided the other
criteria are maintained.
There are shades of gray here, so it is difficult to provide a universally applicable set of rules.
But certainly the further away an item is from the criteria shown, the less inclined one should
be to refer to it as a Likert item or Likert-type item. In particular, most regrettable is the
tendency, not uncommon today, to refer to any ordered category item as Likert-type. We may
treat this kind of error rather summarily, as follows:
Common Error 2
This is not a Likert-scale, a Likert item, or a Likert-type
item:
How often do you smoke cigarettes?
1. Never
2. Once in a while
3. 1-5 per day
4. More than 5 per day.
This is simply an item with ordered response levels, or an ordered-category item.
This is so even if the item is one of several that will be combined to form an aggregate scale.
In this case, one simply has a summated rating scale comprised of several ordered-category
variables.
5

6. LIKERT SCALES
Discrete visual analog scales
Increasingly, and especially on the web, we see items with a format like this:
How helpful did you find this software?
Not
helpful
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Helpful
Example 4. A discrete visual analog scale
or even this:
How helpful did you find this software?
Not
helpful
Helpful
Example 5. A second discrete visual analog scale
Note that several of our criteria are missing here. In particular, there are no verbal labels at all,
except to define the poles of a continuum. Example 4 corresponds to what is called a semantic
differential item.
The recommendation here is that items of either type above should be called simply discrete
visual analog scale (DVAS) items. Such an item is a visual analog scale, because the printed
format implies specific metric relations among the response levels. It is discrete because only
pre-specified levels may be given by the respondent; this is in contrast with a more general
visual analog scale format, where, for instance, the respondent may be instructed to place a
mark on anywhere on a line to indicate his or her level of response.
Note that DVAS is a more generic term than "Likert-type item", and superordinate to it. All
Likert-type items, at least according to the view here, are DVAS, but all DVAS are not Likert-
type items.
Some might suggest that the essential innovation, and, from this, the defining feature, of a
Likert scale was not so much the item format, as that the responses of several items were
added or averaged to produce a composite score; f further, as this is an important and common
technique, some name is needed. Here we simply note that there is an alternative name for
such multi-item scales, namely summated rating scales. Multi-item scales, where individual
items lack the features listed above, should be called this or something equivalent, and not
Likert scales.
6

7. LIKERT SCALES
Web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/likert.htm
Web: http://recepozcan06.blogcu.com/
7