在效率和可解释性之间寻求更好的平衡:比较李克特回答格式和古特曼回答格式。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-13 DOI:10.1037/met0000462
Mark Wilson, Shruti Bathia, Linda Morell, Perman Gochyyev, Bon W Koo, Rebecca Smith
{"title":"在效率和可解释性之间寻求更好的平衡:比较李克特回答格式和古特曼回答格式。","authors":"Mark Wilson, Shruti Bathia, Linda Morell, Perman Gochyyev, Bon W Koo, Rebecca Smith","doi":"10.1037/met0000462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Likert item response format for items is almost ubiquitous in the social sciences and has particular virtues regarding the relative simplicity of item-generation and the efficiency for coding responses. However, in this article, we critique this very common item format, focusing on its affordance for interpretation in terms of internal structure validity evidence. We suggest an alternative, the Guttman response format, which we see as providing a better approach for gathering and interpreting internal structure validity evidence. Using a specific survey-based example, we illustrate how items in this alternative format can be developed, exemplify how such items operate, and explore some comparisons between the results from using the two formats. In conclusion, we recommend usage of the Guttman response format for improving the interpretability of the resulting outcomes. Finally, we also note how this approach may be used in tandem with items that use the Likert response format to help balance efficiency with interpretability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":"1358-1373"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9854400/pdf/nihms-1858997.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seeking a better balance between efficiency and interpretability: Comparing the likert response format with the Guttman response format.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Wilson, Shruti Bathia, Linda Morell, Perman Gochyyev, Bon W Koo, Rebecca Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Likert item response format for items is almost ubiquitous in the social sciences and has particular virtues regarding the relative simplicity of item-generation and the efficiency for coding responses. However, in this article, we critique this very common item format, focusing on its affordance for interpretation in terms of internal structure validity evidence. We suggest an alternative, the Guttman response format, which we see as providing a better approach for gathering and interpreting internal structure validity evidence. Using a specific survey-based example, we illustrate how items in this alternative format can be developed, exemplify how such items operate, and explore some comparisons between the results from using the two formats. In conclusion, we recommend usage of the Guttman response format for improving the interpretability of the resulting outcomes. Finally, we also note how this approach may be used in tandem with items that use the Likert response format to help balance efficiency with interpretability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1358-1373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9854400/pdf/nihms-1858997.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000462\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000462","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

李克特项目回答格式在社会科学中几乎无处不在,它在项目生成的相对简单性和回答编码的效率方面具有特殊的优点。然而,在本文中,我们对这种非常常见的项目格式进行了批评,重点关注其在内部结构效度证据方面的解释能力。我们提出了一种替代方法,即 Guttman 回复格式,我们认为这种方法能更好地收集和解释内部结构效度证据。通过一个具体的调查实例,我们说明了如何开发这种替代格式的项目,举例说明了这种项目的操作方法,并探讨了使用这两种格式的结果之间的一些比较。最后,我们建议使用古特曼答题格式来提高结果的可解释性。最后,我们还指出了如何将这种方法与使用李克特回答格式的项目结合起来使用,以帮助平衡效率与可解释性。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Seeking a better balance between efficiency and interpretability: Comparing the likert response format with the Guttman response format.

The Likert item response format for items is almost ubiquitous in the social sciences and has particular virtues regarding the relative simplicity of item-generation and the efficiency for coding responses. However, in this article, we critique this very common item format, focusing on its affordance for interpretation in terms of internal structure validity evidence. We suggest an alternative, the Guttman response format, which we see as providing a better approach for gathering and interpreting internal structure validity evidence. Using a specific survey-based example, we illustrate how items in this alternative format can be developed, exemplify how such items operate, and explore some comparisons between the results from using the two formats. In conclusion, we recommend usage of the Guttman response format for improving the interpretability of the resulting outcomes. Finally, we also note how this approach may be used in tandem with items that use the Likert response format to help balance efficiency with interpretability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Simulation studies for methodological research in psychology: A standardized template for planning, preregistration, and reporting. How to conduct an integrative mixed methods meta-analysis: A tutorial for the systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Updated guidelines on selecting an intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, with applications to incomplete observational designs. Data-driven covariate selection for confounding adjustment by focusing on the stability of the effect estimator. Estimating and investigating multiple constructs multiple indicators social relations models with and without roles within the traditional structural equation modeling framework: A tutorial.
×
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