How to Design and Report Likert Scale

First How to Design one:

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/instrument%20Reliability%20and
%20Validity/Likert.html
(ee the many different types of Likert cale"
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.htm (a mini #ob$aid with good
e%amples"
Likert scale: & Likert scale (pronounced 'lick$ert'" is a type of psychometric response
scale often used in (uestionnaires) and is the most widely used scale in sur*ey research.
+hen responding to a Likert (uestionnaire item) respondents specify their le*el of
agreement to a statement. ,he scale is named after Rensis Likert) who published a report
describing its use (Likert) -./2".
Sample Question presented using a five-point Likert Scale
& typical test item in a Likert scale is a statement) the respondent is asked to indicate their
degree of agreement with the statement. ,raditionally a fi*e$point scale is used) howe*er
many psychometricians ad*ocate using a se*en or nine point scale.
Ice cream is good for breakfast
-. trongly disagree
2. 0isagree
/. 1either agree nor disagree
2. &gree
3. trongly agree
Likert scaling is a bipolar scaling method) measuring either positi*e and negati*e
response to a statement. ometimes Likert scales are used in a forced choice method
where the middle option of 41either agree nor disagree4 is not a*ailable. Likert scales
may be sub#ect to distortion from se*eral causes. Respondents may a*oid using
e%treme response categories (central tendency bias"5 agree with statements as
presented (acquiescence response bias"5 or try to portray themsel*es or their group in
a more fa*orable light (social desirability bias".
Scoring and analysis: http://www.answers.com/topic/likert-scale
&fter the (uestionnaire is completed) each item may be analy6ed separately or item
responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items. 7ence) Likert scales are
often called summati*e scales.
Responses to a single Likert item are normally treated as ordinal data) because) especially
when using only fi*e le*els) one cannot assume that respondents percei*e the difference
-
between ad#acent le*els as e(uidistant. +hen treated as ordinal data) Likert
responses can be analy6ed using non$parametric tests) such as the 8ann$
+hitney test) the +ilco%on signed$rank test) and the 9ruskal$+allis test.
:-;
Likert cale (<nter*al 0ata"
+hen responses to se*eral Likert items are summed) they may be treated as inter*al data measuring a latent
*ariable. <f the summed responses are normally distributed) parametric statistical tests such as the analysis
of *ariance can be applied.
=%amples:
&ttitudes toward >omputer (20 (uestions) but =ach participant gets one score)
summed"
ample ?uestions:
-. < feel happy when using a computer.
2. 8y hands will sweat e*ery time when < use a computer
/. < feel an%ious when < ha*e to type up a paper on a computer
2. @..
ome of the personality test (same way"
9olbAs Learning tyle <n*entory (>heck it out online"
0ata from Likert scales are sometimes reduced to the nominal le*el by combining all
agree and disagree responses into two categories of 4accept4 and 4re#ect4. ,he >ochran
?) or 8c1emar$,est are common statistical procedures used after this transformation.
A Note from Marcie:
Plenty of people treat ordinal data as continuous --- especially when survey data are
supplemented with other measures
2
!"ample of a Likert #cale $ordinal% #urvey and &ata Analysis
0ata set: the one posted on >ourse +ebsite: Cultural differences in online Learning
See the Survey at: http://sur*eymonkey.com/s.aspBuCD-20-EE/32/ (?uestion 2F
tudentsA Gerceptions on ,eachers and ,eaching in Heneral"
Practice of statistical Analysis for two Class Periods:
Set the data correctly (Data, aria!le"
Analy#e Data$Practice$contin%o%s (Descripti&e Analysis, 'rst
ti(e, lea&e )factor* %nchecked+ second ti(e, check it, co(pare
the res%lts"
Look at the res%lts and see what concl%sions can yo% draw,
Analy#e Data$Practice$-rdinal (.nferential statistics"
#ummary of &ata: $&escriptive analysis%'generated by #urveyMonkey
. Iollowing are se*eral (uestions about your perceptions on or e%pectations about
teachers and teaching in general5 please click on the button to indicate your choice:
#trongl
y agree
Agre
e
(ndecide
d
&isagre
e
#trongl
y
disagree
)espons
e
Average
< typically consider my
teachers to ha*e wisdom.
/2%
(23"
*+,
$-+%
J% (." -% (2" 0% (0" .-/
< usually ha*e a great deal of
respect for my teachers.
2.%
(/."
*+,
$-+%
.% (-2" 2% (3" 0% (0" .+-
< feel me and my teachers
are essentially e(uals.
.% (-2"
01,
$*2%
2D% (/3"
2/%
(/0"
2% (/" 3/4
< think there should be
e%press rules of conduct in
e*ery class which all
students should follow.
2J%
(/D"
*1,
$//%
-J% (2/" D% (E" 0% (0" 313
< e%pect my teachers to be
recogni6ed e%perts in the
field which they teach.
0*,
$/1%
2/%
(3J"
E% (--" /% (2" -% (-" .-.
< am more comfortable when
my teacher conducts class in
a formal manner rather than
informally.
J% (."
/0%
(20"
2/% (/-"
2*,
$0-%
3% (J" 213
5otal )espondents .20
/
$filtered out% 2
$skipped this 6uestion% .
Note: however7 this summary does not give us Mean and #&7 still I needed to analy8e
the raw data
&ata: $Part of the )aw &ata-#urveyMonkey will give you a numerical version%
Culture QS
Open-Ended
Response
Q1Wisd
om
Q2Resp
ect
Q3Equ
al
Q4rulescond
uct
Q5expe
rts
Q6ormalman
ner
C!inese 2 1 2 2 1 5
C!inese 2 2 2 1 1 4
C!inese 2 2 2 2 2 2
C!inese 1 1 2 1 1 2
C!inese 1 1 2 2 1 2
C!inese 3 1 2 2 4 4
C!inese 1 1 1 1 2 4
"merican 2 2 4 2 1 3
"merican 1 1 3 1 2 2
"merican 2 4 4 2 3 4
"merican 1 1 4 1 1 1
american 2 2 3 1 1 3
"merican 1 1 2 2 1 4
"merican 2 2 3 2 2 2
american 2 2 2 2 3 5
"merican 2 2 4 1 2 1
"merican 2 2 1 4 1 4
&escriptive Analysis: $from . strongly agree to * strongly disagree%
n Mean SD
Q1Wisdom4 12# 1$%5& &$614#
Q2Respect4 12# 1$#%5 &$6'#%
Q3Equal4 12% 2$66' &$'6#2
Q4rulesconduct4 12% 2$&31 &$#351
Q5experts4 12% 1$%&1 &$%5'2
Q6formalmanner4 12# 3$&4% 1$&33#
Note "i#ert Scale $as to %e set as &ontinuous Data in order for 'nal(se)it to run descripti*e Statistics+ not
accurate %ut 'ccepta%le,
Plenty of people treat ordinal data as continuous --- especially when survey data are
supplemented with other measures
The rigorous analysis is to get a Weighted mean, which Analyse-it does not do.
Often times, researchers go right into Inferential Statistics and Skip the Descriptie Statistics, since
it is less informatie.
2
:=nd of 0escripti*e &nalysis;
3
<nferential &nalysis on the differences among the three groups (&merican)
>hinese) 9orean" For later discussion
(KouAll try to create the charts posted below) using &nalyse$it"
1) Participants perceptions on teacher and teaching in general (pre-survey): <tem 2 on the pre$
sur*ey assessed participantsA perceptions and e%pectations on teacher and teaching in general. ,he
three (uestions that are closely related to sense of Gower 0istance were analy6ed inferentially
with the 9ruskal$+allis &nalysis of Variance test) with cultural identity being the independent
*ariable. ,he results indicate that:
a" there were significant differences in participantsA perceptions about being e(ual with their
instructor. ,he 9orean group had the highest mean rank (23.3/" on a scale of - (strongly agree" to
3 (strongly disagree". Ly contrast) the &nglo$&merican group had the lowest mean rank (2..JJ"
and therefore percei*ed their instructors more as e(uals.
b" ,here was no significant difference in participantsA perceptions about rules of conduct in online
classes. ,he >hinese group had the lowest mean rank (2../D") an indication of a stronger
agreement about implementing specific rules of conduct. ,his result aligned with some of their
narrati*e comments about Mfeeling lostN and hoping for more guidance.
&nd c" ,here was highly significant differences in their perceptions on course conduct. &gain the
>hinese had the lowest mean rank) an indication of a stronger agreement about conducting
courses in a formal manner.
2) Post-survey: approaching superior and peer when completing individual assignments and
team work: Other Responses to the post sur*ey that reflect the impact of Gower 0istance include:
a" LearnersA comfort le*el in approaching the instructor/facilitator/,& for help with indi*idual
assignments and/or teamwork5 and b" ,heir comfort le*el in approaching the peers for help with
indi*idual assignments and/or teamwork. Garticipants rated their comfort le*el from *ery
comfortable (-") to somewhat comfortable (2") uncomfortable (/") and to *ery uncomfortable (2".
,he lower their mean rating) the higher their comfort le*el. 9ruskal$+allis &nalysis of Variance
was used again to compare the mean differences in participantsA ranking of comfort le*el in
approaching MsuperiorN or their peers) when completing indi*idual assignments and team work if
applicable.
9Note: :ecause the regular Mean of Likert #cale does not make much sense7 I skipped the
descriptive Analysis and ;ent right into Inferential Analysis'Analysis of <ariance using
the Non-Parametric =ruskal-;allis statistic>
<tem -. <ndi*idual &ssignment: &pproaching uperior for 7elp (two$tailed test"
O. <&: &pproach 4uperior4 D n
Rank
sum
8ean
rank
&mericanD /- .30.0 /0.D3
>hineseD -3 DE2.3 23.30
9oreanD 2. -2-J.3 2-..E
9ruskal$+allis statistic J.-3
pD 0.02E0
chis(r appro%imation)
corrected for ties"
+hen the le*el of significance is set at 0.03 (a") the small p *alue (0.02" indicates significant
difference in participantsA rating for approaching MsuperiorN in indi*idual assignment. ,he
D
&merican group) not surprisingly) had the lowest mean rank (/0.D3") an indication of greater
comfort le*el in approaching the instructors for help5 and the >hinese group had the highest mean
rank (23.30" and thus lower comfort le*el in approaching their instructors.
<tem 2. <ndi*idual &ssignment: &pproaching Geer for 7elp (two$tailed test"
n J/
cases e%cluded: 2 due to
missing *alues"
G. <&: &pproach Geer by HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank
&mericanJ /- .--.3 2..20
>hineseJ -3 /J2.3 22.E/
9oreanJ 2J -2-J.0 32.2E
9ruskal$+allis statistic 2D.2D
pJ P0.000-
chis(r appro%imation)
corrected for ties"
+hen aC0.03) the small p *alue (P0.000-" indicates highly significant differences in participantsA
comfort le*el in approaching peers for help with indi*idual assignments. ,he >hinese group had
the lowest mean rank (22.E/$$higher comfort le*el") while the 9orean group had the lowest mean
rank (32.2E$$lower comfort le*el".
<tem /. ,eamwork: &pproaching uperior for 7elp
n 3E
cases e%cluded: -J due to missing
*alues"
Q. ,eam: &pproach 4uperior4 by
HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank
&mericanJ /- E-2.3 2D.2J
>hineseJ -3 30..0 //../
9oreanJ -2 /EJ.3 /2.2.
9ruskal$+allis statistic 2.EE
pJ 0.2/D2
chis(r appro%imation) corrected for
ties"
GC0.2/D (RaC0.03" indicates no significant difference in participantsA comfortableness in
approaching superiors for help when completing teamwork.
<tem 2. ,eamwork: &pproaching Geer for 7elp (two$tailed test"
n 3E
cases e%cluded: -J due to missing
*alues"
V. ,eam: &pproach Geer by
HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank
&mericanJ /- E0D.3 2D.02
>hineseJ -3 /-..3 2-./0
9oreanJ -2 3E3.0 2E.J3
9ruskal$+allis statistic 22.E0
pJ P0.000-
chis(r appro%imation) corrected for
ties"
,he high 9ruskal$+allis statistic (22.E" and the small p *alue (P0.000-" again indicates highly
significant difference in participantsA comfort le*el in approaching peers for help with team work.
,he 9orean group (mean rank C 2E.J3" contributed greatly to this difference. 7owe*er) the
statistical power might ha*e been reduced in this test because of the -J missing rating *alues
J
from the 9orean group. &s mentioned in the curriculum analysis) many of the 9orean courses did
not in*ol*e team work and many chose Mnon applicableN for this sur*ey (uestion.
Summary: Inluence o power distance evidenced !y the our tests: >onforming to the e%isting
findings about Gower 0istance) the &merican group (mainly &nglo$&merican" had the lowest
G0< score) while the >hinese group had the highest G0< score. Gossibly because of their sense of
G0<) the &merican group felt the most comfortable in approaching their instructors for help)
while the 9orean group felt most uncomfortable in doing so. >hinese students) because of their
large class si6e) did not ha*e much opportunity to interact with the instructors. till) their reported
comfort le*el in approaching the instructors was low. &s to approaching their peers for help) the
>hinese group felt the most comfortable in completing both indi*idual assignments and team
work) the &merican group felt comfortable) while the 9orean group felt the least comfortable in
completing both indi*idual assignments and teamwork. &gain) the 9oreansA cultural perceptions
on >8> might ha*e influenced their ratings here. &s some of the 9orean participants
commented) peers or classmates online can be Mstrangers.N &s to the high comfort le*el of the
>hinese) it is worth noting that most of these >hinese students worked in self$formed teams and
they therefore were comfortable about approaching their peers for help.
,he four 9ruskal$+allis analyses on the post$sur*ey items had re*ealing results. &lthough there
was no significant difference in the three groupsA comfort le*el in approaching superiors for help
with team work) there were significant differences in their rating for approaching superiors in
indi*idual assignments) and there were highly significant differences in their le*els of comfort in
approaching peers for help with indi*idual assignments and with team work. Gower 0istance
indeed affected studentsA ways in approaching instructors and their peers. Ly contrast) indi*iduals
were able to o*ercome their sense of Gower 0istance when working as a group. <n other words)
indi*iduals became Mbra*erN when working as a team to approach their instructors for help.
(Irom ;ang?s @ultural #tudies of Anline Learning7 "ritish #ournal o $ducational
%echnology"
E