Many close-ended questions depend upon a scale to communicate a respondent’s preferences, making them well-suited for gradational measurements of attitude (agreement, satisfaction, etc.). Chief among the scales used for such measurement is the Likert scale, though the semantic differential rating scale, and gap analysis scale are both common as well.
Likert scales: Perhaps the most broadly recognizable scale, the Likert scale is often presented on a continuum of 1 to 5 (or occasionally 1 to 7), and is frequently associated with measures of agreement or satisfaction. An example is given below. One point of variation between such scales is the inclusion or exclusion of a neutral or “non-attitude” option. Arguments supporting the inclusion of neutral options indicate that doing so ensures respondents without an opinion are not forced to provide one, which ultimately undermines the reliability of the data collected. Alternatively, arguments in favor of excluding neutral options cite concerns over the tendency of respondents to choose neutral options as a means to avoid providing an opinion, which in turn ultimately impacts the reliability of the data collected.
| If I were to make the choice all over again, I would choose to attend St. Olaf College. | ||||
|
1 Strongly disagree |
2 Disagree |
3 Neither agree nor disagree |
4 Agree |
5 Strongly agree |
Semantic differential rating scales: Often not classified differently from Likert scales, semantic differential rating scales are also on a scale of 1 to 5 (or again 1 to 7). They differ from Likert scales in that they provide descriptive words only at the top and bottom of the scale, leaving the middle vacant and open to participant interpretation. The descriptive words utilized can be antonyms (such as “adequate/inadequate”), or other words that could be used to classify the phenomenon being investigated. Suskie (1996, 36) provides the example featured below demonstrating the differing ways in which this scale type can be used.
| The library services are: | ||||
|
1 Useful |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 Useless |
|
1 Slow |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 Fast |
|
1 For Faculty |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 For Students |
Gap analysis scales: Also known as ecosystem rating scales, gap analysis is intended to measure the attainment of goals (or to examine the gap between goals and outcomes, hence “gap analysis”). Using a numerical scale (often 1 to 5), respondents are asked to provide two ranks in response to a statement: one rank that indicates what they had hoped to accomplish (i.e. their goal) and one rank that represents what they ultimately did accomplish. An example is given below. An advantage to using gap analysis scales is the way in which it allows the researcher to put results into context. By being able to contrast expectations versus results, a researcher can more easily identify a problem.
| A college education is intended to develop in students various types of knowledge. Look over the following types of knowledge. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the least and 5 being the greatest), please rank the extent to which you expected your knowledge to be increased, and then the extent to which your knowledge was actually increased over the course of your college experience. | ||||
|
Expected Increase in Knowledge |
Actual Increase in Knowledge |
|||
|
Discipline-specific knowledge |
||||
|
Interdisciplinary knowledge |
||||
|
Vocational knowledge |
||||
Further Reading
Nardi, P.M. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rea, L.M. & Parker, R.A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.
Suskie, L.A. (1996). Questionnaire survey research: What works (2nd ed.). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research
Weathington, B.L., Cunningham, C.J.L., & Pittenger, D.J. (2010). Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.