On Jun 14, 7:58=A0am, ThoML <micat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ... people do not always look as closely at the labels
> as a data analysist would want them to and tend to answer such
At least some people will look at the labels. And while it's scarcely
infallible, the argument 'from tradition' might apply here: if it's
better to omit the intervening labels, why didn't Likert (and hundreds
of later researchers) discover and implement that simplification?
> questions with respect to the outer labels. For this reason, I'd like
> to put a minor variation of the above up for discussion:
>
> Were you rather satisfied or dissatisfied ...
>
> =A0 1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4 =A0 =A0 =A0
=
=A0 5
> =A0 +---------+---------+---------+---------+
> Dis. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
S=
atisf.
>
> It depends on how you want to analyse and present the data, but IMHO
> this often has some advantages.
I don't see any advantages here. Unless perhaps you have a true
continuous 'thermometer' scale.
Note that with Java code etc. it's getting fairly simple to insert a
continuous 'thermometer' scale item in online surveys.
HTH
John Uebersax PhD
|
