바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.28 No.3
Citation Share

리커트 5점척도에서 자극에 의한 응답결과의 변화 측정에 관한 연구

A Study on Measuring the Change of the Response Results in Likert 5-Point Scale Measurement

정보관리학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2011, v.28 no.3, pp.335-353
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.3.335
노영희 (건국대학교)
노영희. (2011). 리커트 5점척도에서 자극에 의한 응답결과의 변화 측정에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 28(3), 335-353, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.3.335
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

Abstract

This study examines how and which direction respondents who participated in 5-point Likert scale surveys change their initial responses when they are given an identical second survey after certain treatments. The research employs three identical questionnaires (first, second and third surveys) to analyze survey results based on group differences, kinds of treatment, survey purposes, and response change direction and the degree. This paper concludes that, first, it is significant that specialist groups do not change their initial responses compared to a general librarian group. Second, there are no differences by survey purpose; however, participants tend to change their initial responses by others’ opinions rather than by previous use experiences. Third, participants who initially answered positively tend not to change their responses, and most participants who answered negatively change their initial responses in a positive direction. Fourth, when there are changes, participants change their initial responses by less than two points, and most of them change by one point. Finally, the hypothesis that middle responses change most and that participants who respond at both ends do not change their opinion was rejected by the finding that participants who answered on the negative end tend to change their initial responses in a positive direction.

keywords
리커트척도, 응답률, 응답변화, 부정적응답, 긍정적응답, 중간자, likert-type scales, response rate, response changing, negative response, positive response, neutral point

참고문헌

1.

Amoo, T. (2001). Do numeric values influence subjects' responses to rating scales. Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research, 26, 41-46.

2.

Armitage, C. (2004). Changing student evaluations by means of the numeric values of rating scales. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3, 122-125.

3.

Armstong, R. L. (1987). The midpoint on a five-point Likert-type scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 359-362.

4.

Beck, J. (1996). Career anchors, organizational commitment, and job plateaus: An analysis of hotel executive operating committee members' career development. (Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(3), -.

5.

Becker, S. L. (1954). Why an order effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 271-278.

6.

Belson, W. A. (1966). The effects of reversing the presentation order of verbal rating scales. Journal of Advertising Research, 6, 30-376.

7.

Bignami-Van Assche, S. G. (2003). An assessment of the KDICP and MDICP data quality. Demographic Research, 1(2), 31-76.

8.

Brook, D. (1974). Primacy effects in single trial free recall. Applied Statistics, 23, 414-419.

9.

Carp, F. M. (1974). Position effects on interview response. Journal of Gerontology, 29, 581-587.

10.

Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentive on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62-79.

11.

Cobanoglu, C. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441-452.

12.

Cummins, R. A. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement (74-93). ceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore: National University of Singapore.

13.

Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61-77.

14.

De Leeuw, E. D. (1992). Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face-to-face Surveys:TT Publications.

15.

Dillman, D. A. (1999). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method:John Wiley and Sons.

16.

Everett, S. A. (1997). The effect of a monetary incentive in increasing the return rate of a survey to family physicians. Eval Health Professions, 20, 204-207.

17.

Fox, R. J.. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for introducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-491.

18.

Friedman, H. H. (1981). A comparison of balanced and unbalanced rating scales. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 19(2), 1-7.

19.

Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.

20.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain, neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of oneself and various types of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 517-552.

21.

Green, B. F. (1969). Attitude measurement, In Handbook of Social Psychology:Addison-Wesley.

22.

Guy, R. F. (1977). The neutral point on a Likert scale. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 95(2), 199-204.

23.

Hartley, J. (2010). Four layouts and a finding: The effects of changes in the order of the verbal labels and numerical values on Likert-type scales. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 17-27.

24.

Jacoby, J. (1971). Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 495-500.

25.

James, J. (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 442-453.

26.

Komorita, S. S. (1963). Attitude content, intensity and the neutral point on a Likert scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 327-334.

27.

Krosnick, J. A. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-209.

28.

Kulas, J. T. (2008). Middle response function in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 251-259.

29.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives in Psychology, 140, 1-55.

30.

Matell, M. S. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506-509.

31.

McFadden, L. S. (1984). Psychometric function of the "neutral" response option in clinical personality scales. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 7, 25-33.

32.

Mueller, J. E. (1970). Choosing among 133 candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 395-402.

33.

Nicholls, M. R.. (2006). Satisfaction guaranteed: The effect of spatial biases on responses to Likert scales. Psychological Science, 17, 1027-1028.

34.

(2010). A Study on Developing Evaluation Criteria for Electronic Resources in Evaluation Indicators of Libraries. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 36(1), 41-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.11.005.

35.

노영희. (2010). 도서관지도정보시스템 구축을 위한 메타데이터 개발 연구. 정보관리학회지, 27(3), 241-264.

36.

Noh, Y. (2010). A Study on Metadata Elements for Web-based Reference Resources System Developed through Usability Testing. Library Hi Tech, 29(2), 242-265.

37.

Payne, J. D. (1971). The effects of reversing the order of verbal rating scales in a postal survey. Journal of the Market Research Society, 14, 30-44.

38.

Payne, S. L. (1951). The Art of Asking Questions:Princeton University Press.

39.

Quinn, S. B. (1969). The Effects of Reversing of the Order of Presentation of Verbal Rating Scales in Survey Interviews:Survey Research Centre.

40.

Ruggg, D. (1944). The wording of questions, In Gauging public opinion:Princeton University Press.

41.

Schwarz, N. B. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570-582.

42.

Schwarz, N. (1992). A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement, In Context effects in social and psychological research:Springer-Verlag.

43.

Sedlmeier, P. (2006). The role of scales in student ratings. Learning and Instruction, 16, 401-415.

44.

Shcuman, H. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys:Academic Press.

45.

Sheehan, B. K. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Journal, 39(4), 45-54.

46.

Stewart, T. J. (2006). Reliability and validity issues for two common measures of medical students' attitudes toward older adults. Educational Gerontology, 32, 409-421.

47.

Weems, G. H. (2003). Characteristics of respondents who respond differently to positively and negatively worded items on rating scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 587-607.

48.

Wildt, A. R. (1978). Determinants of scale responses: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research, , 261-267.

49.

Worcester, R. M. (1975). A statistical examination of the relative precision of verbal scales. Journal of Market Research Society, 17(3), 181-197.

50.

Wyatt, R. C. (1987). Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type scales. Educational and Phychologicla Measurement, 47, 27-35.

51.

Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613-639.

52.

Yun, G. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. Journal of Market Research Society, 6(1), 235-239.

53.

Dillman, D. A. (1988). Administrative issues in mixed mode surveys, In Telephone survey methodology:Wiley.

정보관리학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책