David Mellor1, Kathleen A Moore. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood 3125, Victoria, Australia. mellor@deakin.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated elementary school children's ability to use a variety of Likert response formats to respond to concrete and abstract items. METHODS: 111 children, aged 6-13 years, responded to 2 physical tasks that required them to make objectively verifiable judgments, using a 5-point response format. Then, using 25 items, we ascertained the consistency between responses using a "gold standard" yes/no format and responses using 5-point Likert formats including numeric values, as well as word-based frequencies, similarities to self, and agreeability. RESULTS: All groups responded similarly to the physical tasks. For the 25 items, the use of numbers to signify agreement yielded low concordance with the yes/no answer format across age-groups. Formats based on words provided higher, but not perfect, concordance for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the limited understanding that children have of Likert response formats.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated elementary school children's ability to use a variety of Likert response formats to respond to concrete and abstract items. METHODS: 111 children, aged 6-13 years, responded to 2 physical tasks that required them to make objectively verifiable judgments, using a 5-point response format. Then, using 25 items, we ascertained the consistency between responses using a "gold standard" yes/no format and responses using 5-point Likert formats including numeric values, as well as word-based frequencies, similarities to self, and agreeability. RESULTS: All groups responded similarly to the physical tasks. For the 25 items, the use of numbers to signify agreement yielded low concordance with the yes/no answer format across age-groups. Formats based on words provided higher, but not perfect, concordance for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the limited understanding that children have of Likert response formats.
Authors: Janine Piscione; Wendy Barden; Janie Barry; Alexandra Malkin; Trisha Roy; Tyki Sueyoshi; Karen Mazil; Steven Salomon; Firas Dandachli; Anthony Griffin; Hugo Saint-Yves; Pina Giuliano; Abha Gupta; Peter Ferguson; Katrin Scheinemann; Michelle Ghert; Robert E Turcotte; Lucie Lafay-Cousin; Joel Werier; Caron Strahlendorf; Marc Isler; Sophie Mottard; Samina Afzal; Megan E Anderson; Sevan Hopyan Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Elizabeth Nagelhout; Lisa G Aspinwall; Kenneth M Boucher; Bridget G Parsons; Wendy Kohlmann; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Sheila Homburger; Ryan D Perkins; Douglas Grossman; Garrett Harding; Sancy A Leachman Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-10-19
Authors: Jason Van Allen; Amy E Noser; Andrew K Littlefield; Paige L Seegan; Mark Clements; Susana R Patton Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Nina R Benway; Elaine R Hitchcock; Tara McAllister; Graham Tomkins Feeny; Jennifer Hill; Jonathan L Preston Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Katie E Gunnell; Patricia E Longmuir; Sarah J Woodruff; Joel D Barnes; Kevin Belanger; Mark S Tremblay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.295