The Use and Analysis of Likert Scales and Likert-Type Items in Educational Research

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 30, 186 - 203, 17.09.2015

İbrahim Turan , Ümit Şimşek , Hasan Aslan

Öz

Since its introduction in 1932 by Rensis Likert, Likert scales and Likert-type items have become the most used attitude and tendency measurement technique in many areas like, social sciences, political sciences, psychology, marketing and education. However, confusion in "Likert Scale" and "Likert-type item" concepts leads to misinterpretation and false analysis of the data obtained from these scales. Another topic of discussion is whether parametric or non-parametric tests should be used in analyzing the Likert scale and Likert-type items. The purpose of this research, is to clarify concepts of "Likert Scale" and "Likert-type item", to determine which concept and method is more preferred in educational research, and to examine which test should be used in the statistical analysis of data obtained from this type of scales. The result of the study show that relevant concepts are mixed with each other, Likert-type items are mostly analyzed with non-parametric tests, and generally parametric tests were used in analyzing Likert scales despite the lack of a consensus on consistent and reliable method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Educational research; likert scale; likert-type item; parametric tests; non-parametric tests.

Eğitim Araştırmalarında Likert Ölçeği ve Likert-Tipi Soruların Kullanımı ve Analizi

Öz

Rensis Likert tarafından 1932 yılında ortaya atıldığından bu yana geçen sürede Likert ölçeği ve Likert-tipi sorular sosyal bilimler, siyaset bilimi, psikoloji, pazarlama ve eğitim gibi pek çok alanda en çok kullanılan tutum ve eğilim ölçüm tekniği haline gelmiştir. Ancak “Likert Ölçeği” ve “Likert-tipi soru” kavramlarının birbiriyle karıştırılması bu ölçeklerden elde edilen verilerin yanlış analizine ve yorumlanmasına yol açmaktadır. Bir başka tartışma konusu da Likert ölçeği veya Likert-tipi sorular ile elde edilen verilerin analizinde parametrik testlerin mi yoksa parametrik olmayan testlerin mi kullanılacağı hususudur. Bu araştırmanın amacı literatürde “Likert Ölçeği” ve “Likert-tipi Soru” kavramları ve bu tür ölçeklerde kullanılabilecek analiz türleri üzerinde yapılan tartışmaları incelemek,  eğitim araştırmalarında bu kavram ve yöntemlerden hangisinin tercih edildiğini tespit etmek ve son olarak bu tip ölçeklerden elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analizinde hangi testlerin uygulanması gerektiğini örnek analizler ile ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma sonucunda konuyla ilgili kavramların birbiriyle karıştırıldığı, Likert-tipi sorularda çoğunlukla parametrik olmayan, Likert ölçeklerinde hangi testin daha tutarlı ve güvenilir olduğu konusunda bir görüş birliği olmamasına rağmen genellikle parametrik testlerin kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eğitim araştırması; likert ölçeği; likert-tipi soru; parametrik testler; parametrik olmayan testler.

Kaynakça

• Adelson, J.L., ve McCoach, D.B. (2010). Measuring the mathematical attitudes of elementary students: the effects of a 4-point or 5-point likert-type scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 796-807, DOI: 10.1177/0013164410366694.
• -
• Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001, May). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143−156.
• Boone, H.N. ve Boone, D.A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data. Journal of Extension, April 2012, V.50, N.2.
• Carifio, J., ve Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150–1152.
• Clason, D. L. ve Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items.Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31- 35.
• Cramer, D. & Howitt, D.L. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource for students in the social sciences. Londra: SAGE.
• Cronbach, L.J. (1946). Response sets and test validity.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475–494.
• Cronbach, L.J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.
• Edmondson, D. R. (2005). Likert scales: A history. In L. C. Neilson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th conference on historical analysis and research in marketing (CHARM)(pp. 127–133). http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm adresinden 10.12.2015 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a Likert rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
• Goldstein, G., & Hersen, M. (1984). Handbook of psychological assessment. New York: Pergamon.
• Hart, M.C. (1996). Improving the discrimination of SERVQUAL by using magnitude scaling. G. K. Kanji (Ed.), Total Quality Management in Action. London: Chapman and Hall.
• Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 2004; 38, 1217–1218.
• Javaras, K.N. ve Ripley, B.D. (2007). An "unfolding" latent variable model for likert attitude data: drawing ınferences adjusted for response style. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 102, No. 478 (Jun., 2007), 454-463. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27639876 adresinden 10.12.2015 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Kaptein, M., Nass, C., ve Markopoulos, P. (2010). Powerful and consistent analysis of likert-type rating scales. CHI 2010 Proceedings, 2391-2394.
• Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning inLikert-responses to personality items.Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 251–260.
• Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 489–493.
• Kuzon, W.M., Urbanchek, M.G. ve McCabe, S. (1996). The seven deadly sins of statistical analysis. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 1996, 37, 265–272.
• Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, Vol. 22, 5-55.
• Nanna, M. J., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1998). Analysis of Likert scale data in disability and medical rehabilitation research. Psychological Methods, 3, 55–67.
• Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dhar, R. (2002). Coping with ambivalence: The effect ofremoving a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgments.Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 319–334.
• Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15.
• Ryan, C. ve Garland, R. (1999). The use of a specific non-response option on Likert-type scales. Tourism Management, 20, 107-113.
• Schutz, H. G., & Rucker, M. H. (1975). A comparison of variable configurations across scale lengths: an empirical study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 319-324.
• Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury
• Park, CA: Sage.
• Stone, M. H. (2004). Substantive scale construction. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.),Introduction to Rasch measurement (201–225). Maple Grove, MN: JAM.
• Tavakoli, H. (2012). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Tahran: Rahnama.
• Tezbaşaran, A.A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu (e-kitap). http://www.academia.edu/1288035/Likert_Tipi_Ölçek_Hazırlama_Kılavuzu adresinden 10.12.2015 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Tezbaşaran, A.A. (2004). Likert tipi ölçeklere madde seçmede geleneksel maddeanalizi tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19 (54), 77-87.
• Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying contexteffects in attitude measurement.Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.
• Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. Internanitonal Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.
• Winter, J.C.F. & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point likert items: T test vs Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 15, No 11, 1-16.