Muddles in Pentatonic Likert-type scale: Accuracy Cost in Psychometric Measurements for Small Enterprise Development
Likert-type scale is ordinal, hence not compatible with parametric techniques. Disregard of this fact causes flawed research outputs. Enterprises get themselves in precarious situations as ultimate consumers flawed outputs. This paper is motivated by the dearth desire by entrepreneurs to make accurate and valid decisions harvested from a dependable measurement scale. Identifying the pitfalls of Likert-type scale and remedies to address the weaknesses, form the objectives of the study. The study is anchored on the Classical Test and Generation theories. Reviewing literature and from own personal experiences in assessing students’ thesis at university level in Kenya found traditional pentatonic Likert-type scale highly favored by most young researchers in enterprise development. The researchers treated the Likert scale outputs as interval data. Consequently most of them got wrong inferential techniques and findings. This study suggests transformation of ordinal data into binary data, interval or ratio before going into parametric analysis. Secondly, increase the number of points on the Likert scale, preferably to seven (7) to enhance reliability, validity, discriminating power and respondent preferences. Thirdly, adopt newest models of Likert type scale, that is; novel fuzzy Likert scale, phrase completion scale and two-stages Likert scale for measuring direction and intensity dimensions seperately. Finally, Likert type scale could be improved by Rasch analysis, too. The findings and suggestions of the study are relevant for researchers in both academic, clinical and enterprise development for attainment of the Kenya Vision 2030.
Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisted: An alernative version. Journal of Marketing Research Society, 331-348.
Alliance for Financial Inclusion. (2017). SME working group survey report: Defining micro, small and medium enterprises(MSMEs) in the AFI Network. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Alliance for Financial Inclusion(AFI).
Awang, Z., Afthanorhan, A., & Mamat, M. (2012). Likert scale analysis using parametric based stractural equation modelling(SEM). Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 13-21.
Bartholomeu, D., da Silva, M. C., & Montiel, J. M. (2016). Improving the Likert scale on the children's social skills test by means of Rasch model. Psychology, 820-826.
Bichi, A. A. (2016). Classical test theory: An introduction to linear modeling approach to test and item analysis. International Journal for Social Studies, 27-33.
Brown, J. D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement. SHIKEN: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 10-14.
Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-type scale. The Social Sciences, 19-22.
Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2012). How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1-17.
DeWinter, J., & Dodu, D. (2010). Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation.
Henson, R., Hull, D. M., & Williams, C. S. (2010). Methodology in our education research culture. Educational Researcher, 229-240.
Hodge, D., & Gillespie, D. (2007). Phrase completion scales: A better measurement approach than Likert scales? Journal of Social Science Research, 1-12.
Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Survey Question Bank: Methods Fact Sheet, 1-7.
Junior, S. D., & Costa, F. J. (2014). Measurement and verification scales: A comperative analysis between the Likert and Phrase completion scale. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Opinion and Media Research, 1-15.
Lewis, F. D., & Horn, G. J. (2017). Rasch analysis and functional measurement in post-hopital brain injury rehabilitation. International Journal of Statistics and Probability, 50-59.
Li, Q. (2013). A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 1609-1618.
Lucian, R. (2016). Rethinking the use of Likert scale: traditional or technical choice? Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Opinion and Media Research, 11-26.
McCreary, L. L., Conrad, K. M., Scott, C. K., Funk, R. R., & Dennis, M. (2013). Using the Rasch measurement model in psychometric analysis in the family effectiveness measurement. Nursing Research, 149-159.
Murray, J. (2013). Likert Data: What to use, Parametric or non-parametric? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 258-264.
Muturi, P. M. (2015). The role of micro and small enterprises(MSEs) in achieving Kenya Vision 2030. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 1337-1352.
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 1-15.
Prion, S. K., Gilbert, G. E., & Haeling, K. (2016). Generalizability theory: An introduction with application to simulation evaluation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 546-554.
Rattanalertnusorn, A., Thongteeraparp, A., & Bodhisuwan, W. (2013). Fuzzy rating score on the Likert scale. International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences(ICEAS, 2013) (pp. 291-325). Osaka, Japan: ICEAS.
Subedi, B. P. (2016). Using Likert type data in social science research: Confusion, issues and challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences, 36-49.
Thompson, B., & Crowley, S. (1994). When classical measurement theory is insufficient and generalizability theory is essential. the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association (pp. 1-18). Kailu-Kona, Hawaii: Western Psychological Association.
Viljoen, M. (2015). Constructing homogeneous Likert-type summative rating scales according to classical measurement theory. Journal of Social Sciences, 143-151.
Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2018). Applications of genralizability theory and their relations to classical test theory and structural equation modelling. Psychological Methods, 1-26.
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Dr.Sc. Francis Okumu Omillo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.