Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of Data Processing and Presentation in Social Surveys: From Likert-Means to “Yes Percentage”

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Modeling and Simulation of Social-Behavioral Phenomena in Creative Societies (MSBC 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1079))

Abstract

The article presents a replication study of a significant empirical study carried out earlier. Borg, Gabler (2002) showed that there is an extremely high correlation between the Means of Likert Scale Items and the percentage of agreement (Yes%). On this basis, they suggested to use not traditional Likert mean, but Yes % in survey reports. The latter are easier to interpret and do not have the same problem as Equidistance of Likert-type scales. It was decided, based on the big date (N ≈ 9000), to carry out the replication study in another historical time, in another culture and measuring another construct. If the statistical regularity detected by Borg, Gabler is repeated, it is universal, then it is really appropriate to move to a wider use of Yes% when preparing the survey report. The replication study showed that there is an extremely high correlation (R2 = 0.948) between the primary Likert items means and Yes% of items, approximating to the linear function. Used the classic 5-grade Likert scale. The verification is carried out only at the level of single items without passing to the level of analysis of additive indexes. It also turned out that the Likert items-mean correlation with the No% is lower (R2 = 0.865), which negates the postulate of symmetry of the scale. In addition, the Likert means correlation with “neutral category%” is even lower - R2 = 0.340. When preparing Survey studies reports, give priority to “yes %” instead of Likert items means.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, a particular urban centre does not contain a railway station and a hospital whose owner is the local government. Whereas the standard questionnaire includes questions on the railway station’s environmental management and the services of a local hospital.

References

  1. Balch, V.Ch.: Internet Survey Methodology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Tyne (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baros, W., Rost, J.: Natur-und kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven in der Psychologie. Methodologie, Methoden, Anwendungsbeispiele. Regener, Berlin (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borg, I., Gabler, S.: Zustimmungsanteile und Mittelwerte von Likertskalierten Items. ZUMA Nachrichten 26(50), 7–25 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bubelienė, D., Merkys, G.: School’s cultural diversity: what is the difference between “school of happiness” and “school prison”? In: Lubkina, V., Danilane L., Usca, S. (eds.) International Scientific conference on Society, Integration, Education - SIE2019, vol. II, pp. 53–69. Rezekne Academy of Technologies, Rezekne (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carinio, J., Perla, R.J.: Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. J. Soc. Sci. 3, 106–116 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cunningham, W.A., Zelazo, P.D.: Attitudes and evaluations: a social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11(3), 97–104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawes, J.: Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int. J. Mark. Res. 50(1), 61–77 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Ayala, R.J.: The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. The Guilford Press, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fischer, H.: A History of the Central Limit Theorem: From Classical to Modern Probability Theory. Springer, New York (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Georgii, H.O.: Stochastik: Einführung in die Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Statistik, vol. 4. de Gruyter, Auflage (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H.J.: Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Sage Press, Newbury Park (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heiberger, R.M., Robbins, N.B.: Design of diverging stacked bar charts for likert scales and other applications. J. Stat. Softw 57(5), 1–32 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofmans, J.: Editorial: applications of functional measurement in psychology. Psichologica 31(3), 431–439 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hofmans, J., Theuns, P., Mairesse, O.: Impact of the number of response categories on linearity and sensivity of self-anchoring scales. Methdology 3(4), 160–169 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jacoby, J., Matell, M.S.: Three-point likert scales are good enough. J. Mark. Res. 8(4), 495–500 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jamieson, S.: Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med. Educ. 38(12), 1217–1218 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., Rees, G.: Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Curr. Biol. 21(8), 677–680 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kemper, Ch., Brähler, E. Zenger, M.: Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen. Standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Medizinisch Wissechaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lamnek, S., Krell, C.: Qualitative Sozialforschung 6., überarbeitete Auflage. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 55 (1932)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lozano, L.M., Carcia-Cueto, E., Muniz, J.: Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methdology 4(2), 73–79 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Merkys, G., Bagdonas, A., Bubelienė, D.: Vaiko ir mokyklos saugumo vertinimo klausimynas: indikatoriai ir faktorinė validacija. Socialinis ugdymas 3(35), 52–61 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Merkys, G., Bubelienė, D.: Radviliškio rajono savivaldybė “Radviliškio rajono gyventojų pasitenkinimo viešosiomis paslaugomis apskaičiavimo indeksas” (2017). (Unprinted report). http://www.radviliskis.lt/lit/Ar-radviliskio-rajono-gyventojai-patenkinti-teikiamomis-viesosiomis-paslaugomis-kvieciame-susipazinti-su-tyrimo-ataskaita

  24. Merkys, G., Brazienė, R.: Evaluation of public services provided by municipalities in Lithuania: an experience of applying a standardized survey inventory. Soc. Sci. 4(66), 50–61 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rost, J.: Lehrbuch Testtheorie - Testkonstruktion (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.). Bern, Huber (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., Eid, M.: Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. Eur. J. Pers. 3, 389–408 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vytautas Magnus University, 44248, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Gediminas Merkys

  2. Kaunas University of Applied Sciences, Pramones pr. 20, 50468, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Daiva Bubeliene

Authors
  1. Gediminas Merkys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daiva Bubeliene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gediminas Merkys .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Information Science Department, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Nitin Agarwal

  2. Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Leonidas Sakalauskas

  3. Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

    Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Merkys, G., Bubeliene, D. (2019). Optimization of Data Processing and Presentation in Social Surveys: From Likert-Means to “Yes Percentage”. In: Agarwal, N., Sakalauskas, L., Weber, GW. (eds) Modeling and Simulation of Social-Behavioral Phenomena in Creative Societies. MSBC 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1079. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29862-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29862-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29861-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29862-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation