Moving beyond Likert and Traditional Forced-Choice Scales: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Graded Forced-Choice Format.

IF 5.3 3区 心理学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Multivariate Behavioral Research Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682
Bo Zhang, Jing Luo, Jian Li
{"title":"Moving beyond Likert and Traditional Forced-Choice Scales: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Graded Forced-Choice Format.","authors":"Bo Zhang, Jing Luo, Jian Li","doi":"10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The graded forced-choice (FC) format has recently emerged as an alternative that may preserve the advantages and overcome the issues of the dichotomous FC measures. The current study presented the first large-scale evaluation of the performance of three types of FC measures (FC2, FC4 and FC5 with 2, 4 and 5 response options, respectively) and compared their performance to their Likert (LK) counterparts (LK2, LK4, and LK5) on (1) psychometric properties, (2) respondent reactions, and (3) susceptibility to response styles. Results showed that, compared to LK measures with the same number of response options, the three FC scales provided better support for the hypothesized factor structure, were perceived as more faking-resistant and cognitive demanding, and were less susceptible to response styles. FC4/5 and LK4/5 demonstrated similarly good reliability, while LK2 provided more reliable scores than FC2. When compared across the three FC measures, FC4 and FC5 displayed comparable psychometric performance and respondent reactions. FC4 exhibited a moderate presence of extreme response style, while FC5 had a weak presence of both extreme and middle response styles. Based on these findings, the study recommends the use of graded FC over dichotomous FC and LK, particularly FC5 when extreme response style is a concern.</p>","PeriodicalId":53155,"journal":{"name":"Multivariate Behavioral Research","volume":" ","pages":"434-460"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multivariate Behavioral Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The graded forced-choice (FC) format has recently emerged as an alternative that may preserve the advantages and overcome the issues of the dichotomous FC measures. The current study presented the first large-scale evaluation of the performance of three types of FC measures (FC2, FC4 and FC5 with 2, 4 and 5 response options, respectively) and compared their performance to their Likert (LK) counterparts (LK2, LK4, and LK5) on (1) psychometric properties, (2) respondent reactions, and (3) susceptibility to response styles. Results showed that, compared to LK measures with the same number of response options, the three FC scales provided better support for the hypothesized factor structure, were perceived as more faking-resistant and cognitive demanding, and were less susceptible to response styles. FC4/5 and LK4/5 demonstrated similarly good reliability, while LK2 provided more reliable scores than FC2. When compared across the three FC measures, FC4 and FC5 displayed comparable psychometric performance and respondent reactions. FC4 exhibited a moderate presence of extreme response style, while FC5 had a weak presence of both extreme and middle response styles. Based on these findings, the study recommends the use of graded FC over dichotomous FC and LK, particularly FC5 when extreme response style is a concern.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越李克特和传统强迫选择量表:分级强迫选择格式的全面调查。
最近出现了一种分级强迫选择(FC)形式,它可以保留二分强迫选择测量法的优点并克服其问题。本研究首次大规模评估了三种强迫选择测量(FC2、FC4 和 FC5,分别有 2、4 和 5 个回答选项)的性能,并将它们与李克特(LK)测量(LK2、LK4 和 LK5)在以下方面进行了比较:(1) 心理计量特性;(2) 被调查者的反应;(3) 对回答风格的敏感性。结果表明,与具有相同数量回答选项的 LK 量表相比,三个 FC 量表能更好地支持假设的因子结构,被认为具有更强的抗伪造性和认知要求,并且不易受回答方式的影响。FC4/5和LK4/5同样表现出良好的可靠性,而LK2的得分比FC2更可靠。在对三种功能测试进行比较时,FC4 和 FC5 的心理测量表现和受访者反应相当。FC4 表现出中等程度的极端反应风格,而 FC5 则表现出微弱的极端和中等反应风格。基于这些研究结果,本研究建议使用分级功能测试,而不是二分式功能测试和LK,尤其是当极端反应风格是一个值得关注的问题时,建议使用功能测试5。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Multivariate Behavioral Research 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.60%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Multivariate Behavioral Research (MBR) publishes a variety of substantive, methodological, and theoretical articles in all areas of the social and behavioral sciences. Most MBR articles fall into one of two categories. Substantive articles report on applications of sophisticated multivariate research methods to study topics of substantive interest in personality, health, intelligence, industrial/organizational, and other behavioral science areas. Methodological articles present and/or evaluate new developments in multivariate methods, or address methodological issues in current research. We also encourage submission of integrative articles related to pedagogy involving multivariate research methods, and to historical treatments of interest and relevance to multivariate research methods.
期刊最新文献
Latently Mediating: A Bayesian Take on Causal Mediation Analysis with Structured Survey Data. Quantifying Evidence for-and against-Granger Causality with Bayes Factors. Person Specific Parameter Heterogeneity in the 2PL IRT Model. Environment-by-PGS Interaction in the Classical Twin Design: An Application to Childhood Anxiety and Negative Affect. Homogeneity Assumptions in the Analysis of Dynamic Processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1