Downloads provided by UsageCounts
In this paper, we answered two questions: What is the reliability of a response scale in a question? What is the validity of a response scale in a question? The purpose of this paper is to present practical tools for measuring the reliability and validity of response scales used in written survey. Reliability measures consistency and validity measures precision. Our objective is to determine the reliability and validity of Likert and non-Likert scales used in research instrument. The data came from the numerical values of each type of scale. The Likert-type of scales include (1,2,3,4,5), (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10). Non-Likert scale was (0,1,2,3). Reliability was measured by the estimated of under system analysis. The response space was proxied as a system to create a range between maximum and minimum values in the scale. Validity was tested by using the Fisher transformation of the estimated Z score of series. Empirical evidence shows that non-Likert scale (0,1,2,3) is 92% reliable while the Likert-type of scale had 90, 89, and 88% reliability. Validity test showed that non-Likert scale was 93% reliable, while the Likert-type scale had 89, 61, and 57% precision. Through Monte Carlo simulation and NK landscape method for optimization, the ability of information retention for non-Likert scale was 0.96 and 0.73, 0.75, and 0.77 for Likert scales. We standardize the scale efficacy in a 5.0 system, the non-Likert scale is 4.73 and 2.35, 2.45, and 2.41 for Likert scales.In this paper, we answered two questions: What is the reliability of a response scale in a question? What is the validity of a response scale in a question? The purpose of this paper is to present practical tools for measuring the reliability and validity of response scales used in written survey. Reliability measures consistency and validity measures precision. Our objective is to determine the reliability and validity of Likert and non-Likert scales used in research instrument. The data came from the numerical values of each type of scale. The Likert-type of scales include (1,2,3,4,5), (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10). Non-Likert scale was (0,1,2,3). Reliability was measured by the estimated of under system analysis. The response space was proxied as a system to create a range between maximum and minimum values in the scale. Validity was tested by using the Fisher transformation of the estimated Z score of series. Empirical evidence shows that non-Likert scale (0,1,2,3) is 92% reliable while the Likert-type of scale had 90, 89, and 88% reliability. Validity test showed that non-Likert scale was 93% reliable, while the Likert-type scale had 89, 61, and 57% precision. Through Monte Carlo simulation and NK landscape method for optimization, the ability of information retention for non-Likert scale was 0.96 and 0.73, 0.75, and 0.77 for Likert scales. We standardize the scale efficacy in a 5.0 system, the non-Likert scale is 4.73 and 2.35, 2.45, and 2.41 for Likert scales.
JEL Code: C12, C13, C15, C18, C83, C93
Likert, questionnaire, reliability, scale, survey, validity
Likert, questionnaire, reliability, scale, survey, validity
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 1K | |
| downloads | 694 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts