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}
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).
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.