Diseño del formato de escalas tipo Likert: un estado de la cuestión
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.1.1347Palabras clave:
Escala Likert, encuestas, datos de investigación, sesgo.Agencias de apoyo:
Junta de Andalucía, Universidad de MálagaResumen
Las escalas tipo Likert constituyen uno de los instrumentos más utilizados en Ciencias Sociales y estudios de mercado. No obstante, existe cierto debate sobre el formato de estas escalas para obtener datos de calidad. En este artículo se presenta un estudio de revisión sobre los formatos de las escala tipo Likert y su relación con la calidad de los datos que es posible obtener con ellos. Para ello se ha realizado una revisión sistemática junto con una síntesis del contenido, identificando un conjunto de temas o tópicos relevantes por sus implicaciones metodológicas: sesgos y estilos de respuesta, el número óptimo de alternativas, las razones de elección de la alternativa intermedia y el efecto de la alternativa “No opino”. Con base en el análisis y discusión de estos temas se presentan algunas recomendaciones de formato en las conclusiones del estudio.Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Referencias
Adelson, J. L. y 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 Measuremente, 70(5), 796-807.
Agli, O., Bailly, N. y Ferrand, C. (2015). Spirituality and religion in older adults with dementia: a systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(5), 715-72.
Ayidiya, S. y McClendon, M. (1990). Response effects in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229-247.
Baka, A. y Figgou, L. (2012). ‘Neither agree, nor disagree’: a critical analysis of the middle answer category in voting advice applications. International Journal Governance, 5(3/4), 244-263.
Bertram, D. (2008). Likert Scales... are the meaning of life. Topic report: Recuperado de http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220-232.
Bland, C. J., Meurer, L. N. y Maldonado, G. (1995). A systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literature. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 70, 642-653.
Cañadas, I. y Sánchez-Bruno, A. (1998). Categorías de respuestas en escalas tipo Likert. Psicothema, 10(3), 623-631.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. En E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cox, E. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives in a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
Cummins, R. A. y Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Actas de la II Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). National University of Singapore.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 1-19.
Dawes, R. M. (1975). Fundamentos y técnicas de medición de actitudes. México: Limusa.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Nueva York: John Wiley y Sons.
Edmondson, D. R. (2005), Likert scales. A history. Conference on Historical Analysis y Research in Marketing Proceedings, 12, 127-133.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Problems with meta-analysis. En I. Chalmers y G. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews (pp. 64-74). Londres: BMJ Publishing Group.
Finstad, K. (2010). Reponse interpolation and scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104-110.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
Garland, R. (1991). The midpoint on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
He, J. y Von De Vijver, J. R. (2015). Effects of a general response style on cross-cultural comparisons. Evidence from the teaching and learning internation survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 267-290. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv006
Hernández, A., Espejo, B., Gómez-Benito, J. y González-Romá, V. (2001). Escalas de respuesta tipo Likert: ¿Es relevante la alternativa “indiferente”? Metodología de Encuestas, 3(2), 135-150.
Higgins, J. y Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Recuperado de www.handbook.cochrane.org
Hopkins, D. (1989). Investigación en el aula. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias.
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2), 237-264.
Kennedy, R., Riquier, C. y Sharp. B. (1996). Practical applications of correspondence analysis to categorical data in market research. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 5(1), 56-70.
Klopfer, F. y Madden, T. (1980). The middlemost choice on attitude items: Ambivalence, neutrality, or uncertainty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 97-101.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitude. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-55.
Lozano, L., García-Cueto, E. y Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73-79.
Matus, C. (2007). Dimensiones de la calidad según OECD y EUROSTAT. Recuperado de http://www.ine.cl/canales/menu/publicaciones/estudios_y_documentos/estudios/dimensionesdecalidad_4.pdf
Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality and Quantity, 42(6), 779-794.
Nadler, J., Weston, R. y Voyles, E. (2015). Stuck in the middle: the use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71-89.
Oaster, T. R. F. (1989). Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 549-550.
Pardo, A. (2002). Análisis de datos categóricos. Madrid: UNED.
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. En J. Robinson, P. Shaver y L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-51). EUA: Academic Press.
Pemberton, E. (1933). A technique for measuring the optimum rating scale for opinion measures. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 470-472.
Peterson, R. y Wilson, R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 61-71.
Salkind, N. (1998). Métodos de Investigación. México: Prentice Hall.
Saris, W., Veld, W. y Gallhofer, I. (2004). Development and improvement of questionnaires using predictions of reliability and validity. En S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin y E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (275-297). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley y Sons.
Scherpenzeel, A. y Saris, W. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 341-383.
Schuman, H. y Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Silva, F., Valdivia, B., Iop, R., Gutierres, P. y Silva, R. (2013). Escalas y listas de evaluación de la calidad de estudios científicos. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 24(3). Recuperado de http://www.acimed.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/438/318
Sudman, S. y Bradburn, N. M. (1989). Measuring attitudes: recording responses. En S. Sudman y N. Bradburn, (Eds.), Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tójar, J. C. (2006). Investigación cualitativa. Madrid: La Muralla.
Velez, P. y Ashworth, S. D. (2007). The impact of item readability on the endorsment of the midpoint reponse in surveys. Survey Research Methods, 1(2), 69-74.
Agli, O., Bailly, N. y Ferrand, C. (2015). Spirituality and religion in older adults with dementia: a systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(5), 715-72.
Ayidiya, S. y McClendon, M. (1990). Response effects in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229-247.
Baka, A. y Figgou, L. (2012). ‘Neither agree, nor disagree’: a critical analysis of the middle answer category in voting advice applications. International Journal Governance, 5(3/4), 244-263.
Bertram, D. (2008). Likert Scales... are the meaning of life. Topic report: Recuperado de http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220-232.
Bland, C. J., Meurer, L. N. y Maldonado, G. (1995). A systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literature. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 70, 642-653.
Cañadas, I. y Sánchez-Bruno, A. (1998). Categorías de respuestas en escalas tipo Likert. Psicothema, 10(3), 623-631.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. En E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cox, E. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives in a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
Cummins, R. A. y Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Actas de la II Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). National University of Singapore.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 1-19.
Dawes, R. M. (1975). Fundamentos y técnicas de medición de actitudes. México: Limusa.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Nueva York: John Wiley y Sons.
Edmondson, D. R. (2005), Likert scales. A history. Conference on Historical Analysis y Research in Marketing Proceedings, 12, 127-133.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Problems with meta-analysis. En I. Chalmers y G. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews (pp. 64-74). Londres: BMJ Publishing Group.
Finstad, K. (2010). Reponse interpolation and scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104-110.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
Garland, R. (1991). The midpoint on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
He, J. y Von De Vijver, J. R. (2015). Effects of a general response style on cross-cultural comparisons. Evidence from the teaching and learning internation survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 267-290. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv006
Hernández, A., Espejo, B., Gómez-Benito, J. y González-Romá, V. (2001). Escalas de respuesta tipo Likert: ¿Es relevante la alternativa “indiferente”? Metodología de Encuestas, 3(2), 135-150.
Higgins, J. y Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Recuperado de www.handbook.cochrane.org
Hopkins, D. (1989). Investigación en el aula. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias.
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2), 237-264.
Kennedy, R., Riquier, C. y Sharp. B. (1996). Practical applications of correspondence analysis to categorical data in market research. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 5(1), 56-70.
Klopfer, F. y Madden, T. (1980). The middlemost choice on attitude items: Ambivalence, neutrality, or uncertainty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 97-101.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitude. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-55.
Lozano, L., García-Cueto, E. y Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73-79.
Matus, C. (2007). Dimensiones de la calidad según OECD y EUROSTAT. Recuperado de http://www.ine.cl/canales/menu/publicaciones/estudios_y_documentos/estudios/dimensionesdecalidad_4.pdf
Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality and Quantity, 42(6), 779-794.
Nadler, J., Weston, R. y Voyles, E. (2015). Stuck in the middle: the use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71-89.
Oaster, T. R. F. (1989). Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 549-550.
Pardo, A. (2002). Análisis de datos categóricos. Madrid: UNED.
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. En J. Robinson, P. Shaver y L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-51). EUA: Academic Press.
Pemberton, E. (1933). A technique for measuring the optimum rating scale for opinion measures. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 470-472.
Peterson, R. y Wilson, R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 61-71.
Salkind, N. (1998). Métodos de Investigación. México: Prentice Hall.
Saris, W., Veld, W. y Gallhofer, I. (2004). Development and improvement of questionnaires using predictions of reliability and validity. En S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin y E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (275-297). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley y Sons.
Scherpenzeel, A. y Saris, W. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 341-383.
Schuman, H. y Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Silva, F., Valdivia, B., Iop, R., Gutierres, P. y Silva, R. (2013). Escalas y listas de evaluación de la calidad de estudios científicos. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 24(3). Recuperado de http://www.acimed.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/438/318
Sudman, S. y Bradburn, N. M. (1989). Measuring attitudes: recording responses. En S. Sudman y N. Bradburn, (Eds.), Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tójar, J. C. (2006). Investigación cualitativa. Madrid: La Muralla.
Velez, P. y Ashworth, S. D. (2007). The impact of item readability on the endorsment of the midpoint reponse in surveys. Survey Research Methods, 1(2), 69-74.
Descargas
-
HTML
-
PDF
-
XMLESPAÑOL 102
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo: 20721
Publicado
2018-02-09
