Korean Journal of Community Nutrition (대한지역사회영양학회지)

The Korean Society of Community Nutrition (대한지역사회영양학회)
권호 표지

The Use of Likert Scale in Community Nutrition Research: Analysis of the Articles Published in Korean Journal of Community Nutrition

지역사회영양학 연구에서의 리커트 척도 이용 현황: 대한지역사회영양학회지 게재 논문을 중심으로

  • Ryu, Si-Hyun (Department of Nutrition and FoodService Management, Paichai University) ;
  • Yoon, Ji-Hyun (Department of Food and Nutrition & Research Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University)
  • 류시현 (배재대학교 외식경영학과) ;
  • 윤지현 (서울대학교 식품영양학과 및 생활과학연구소)
  • Published : 2009.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine if Likert scales had been properly utilized in community nutrition research. A total of 527 research articles published in the 32 issues of Korean Journal of Community Nutrition from the volume 5, issue 1 in 2000 to the volume 10, issue 2 in 2005 were screened and 55 articles were found to have utilized one or more Likert scales for the studies. Therefore, 109 Likert scales used in the 55 studies were reviewed regarding the name, statement and response items, reliability and validity check, and analysis method. The scales were mostly referred as Likert scales (60%) or Likert-type scales (27%). Some scales were found to be referred as Likert scales although they were Likert-type scales when judged based on the information given in the respective articles. However some scales couldn't be judged for the rightness of the names because the information given for the scales in the articles was not enough. About 23% of the scales consisted of items less than 6 or more than 30, and therefore found to be inappropriate. The percentage of the scales listing all the statement items in the articles was only 25%. Most of the scales (85%) included 5 response items, and the rest included 4 (7%), 7 (6%), or 3 (2%). The percentages of the scales including appropriate center and end items were only 2% and 22%, respectively. Less than half of the scales (41%) were found to have been checked for reliability and only one scale was reported to have been checked for validity. In some scales (6%), the responses were scored improperly for analysis. The responses to the scales were frequently found to have been analyzed by parametric statistics such as mean, ANOVA, t-test, and Pearson's correlation, which might be a problem depending on the size and distribution of study samples. In conclusion, there is much room for improvement in the use of Likert scales in community nutrition research.

Keywords

References

  1. Aiken LR (1983): Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 43(2): 397-401 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300209
  2. Albaum G (1997): The Likert scale revisited: an alterate version. J Marketing Research Society 5(1): 29-47
  3. Becker L (1999) : Scales of Measurement. Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/SPSS/scalemeas.htm
  4. Cha BK (1990): 등간척도에서의 등간의 수에 관한 비교문화권적 조사연구. 한국언론학보 25: 199-223
  5. Cox EP (1980): The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. J Marketing Research 17(4): 407-422 https://doi.org/10.2307/3150495
  6. Dumas J (1999): Usability testing methods: subjective measures, Part II - measuring attitudes and opinions, pp. 153-162, American Institute for Research. Usability Professional's Association
  7. Edmondson DR (2005): Likert scales: a history. Conference Proceedings on Historical Analysis & Research in Marketing 12: 127-133
  8. Guy RF, Norvell M (1977): The neutral point on a Likert scale. J Psychology 95(2): 199-204 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1977.9915880
  9. Hong DS (2000): 사회조사분석(3rd ed.), Dasan Books Co., Seoul
  10. Jacoby J, Martell MS (1971): Three points Likert scales are good enough. J Marketing Research 8(4): 495-500 https://doi.org/10.2307/3150242
  11. Jamieson S (2004): Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education 38(12): 1217-1218 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
  12. Jenkins GD, Taber TD (1977): A monte carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. J Applied Psychology 62(4): 392-398 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.392
  13. Kim ER (2001): Social Research. Korea University Press, Seoul
  14. Kim HJ, Kim JH (2007): Ordered logit model: 설문조사에 적용되는 척도의 종류. 월간국토 310: 94-102
  15. Kwon DH (2008): Educational Evaluation (2nd ed.), Hakjisa Co., Seoul
  16. Knapp TR (1990): Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy. Nursing Research 39(2): 121-123
  17. Kronsnick JA (1999): Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 50(1): 537-567 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
  18. Lee EJ (1985): 커뮤니케이션 연구에 있어서 Likert 척도의 이용에 관한 소고. 커뮤니케이션과학 9: 51-85
  19. Likert RA (1932): A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140
  20. Lisstiz RW, Green SB (1975): Effect of the number of scale points on reliability a monte carlo approach. J Applied Psychology 60(1): 10-13 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076268
  21. Loewenthal KM (1996): An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, UCL Press Limited, London
  22. Marsh-Richard DM, Hatzis ES, Mathias CW, Venditti N, Dougherty DM (2009): Adaptive visual analog scales(AVAS): a modifiable software program for the creation, administration, and scoring of visual analog scales. Behav Res Methods 41(1): 99-106 https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.99
  23. Mo SM, Koo JO, Park YJ, Park YS, Soon SM, Seo JS (2005): Community Nutrition, Kyomunsa Co., Seoul
  24. Nitko AJ (1983): Educational Tests and Measurement: An Introduction, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., New York
  25. Nunnally JC (1978): Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York
  26. Oh IH (1995): Social Survey Method: Non-sampling Errors, Nanam Publishing House., Seoul
  27. Ok CS (2001): 연구방법론과 논문작성법, Jigu Publishing Co., Seoul
  28. Oster TRF (1989): Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills 68(2): 549-550 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.549
  29. Park (2007): Educational Evaluation, Kyoyookbook Co., Seoul
  30. Presser S, Schuman H(1980): The measurement of a middle position in attitude survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(1):70-85 https://doi.org/10.1086/268567
  31. Preston CC, Colman AM (2000): Optimal number of response categories in rating scales -Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences-. Acta Psychologica 104(1): 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
  32. Ron G (1991): The mid-point on s rating scale -Is it desirable?-. Marketing Bulletin 91(2): 66-70
  33. Ryan M (1980): The Likert scale's midpoint in communications research. Journalism Quarterly 57(2): 305-313 https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700216
  34. Seong TJ (1996): Validity and Reliability, Yangseowon Co., Seoul
  35. Sung SJ, Yoo TK, Lee SW, Lee GY (2005): Research Methods for Social Work (4th ed.) (Originally written by Rubin A, Babbie ER in 2000). Sigmapress Co., Seoul
  36. Uebersax JS (2006): Likert Scales: Dispelling the Confusion. Statistical Methods for Rater Agreement website. Retrived January 10, 2008, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/likert.htm
  37. Vagias WM (2006): Likert-type Scale Response Anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism. & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University
  38. Weng LJ (2004): Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(6): 956-972 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674
  39. Wyatt RC, Meyers LS (1987): Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert type response scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 47(1): 27-35 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164487471003