Abstract:A recent article by Jamieson in Medical Education outlined some of the (alleged) abuses of "Likert scales" with suggestions about how researchers can overcome some of the (alleged) methodological pitfalls and limitations [1] . However, many of the ideas advanced in the Jamison article, as well as a great many of articles it cited, and similar recent articles in medical, health, psychology, and educational journals and books, are themselves common misunderstandings, misconceptions, conceptual errors, persistent myths and "urban legends" about "Likert scales" and their characteristics and qualities that have been propagated and perpetuated across six decades, for a variety of different reasons. This article identifies, analyses and traces many of these aforementioned problems and presents the arguments, counter arguments and empirical evidence that show these many persistent claims and myths about "Likert scales" to be factually incorrect and untrue. Many studies have shown that Likert Scales (as opposed to single Likert response format items) produce interval data and that the F-test is very robust to violations of the interval data assumption and moderate skewing and may be used to analyze "Likert data" (even if it is ordinal), but not on an item-by-item "shotgun" basis, which is simply a current research and analysis practice that must stop. After sixty years, it is more than time to dispel these particular research myths and urban legends as well as the various damage and problems they cause, and put them to bed and out of their misery once and for all.

No abstract

Although vignettes are used in all areas of social science research, few vignette validation studies have been done. This article reports on the validation of a structured group of patient assault vignettes and outlines a model for the validation of vignettes. The advantages and versatility of vignettes as a data collection tool and/or a methodology are also discussed .She use of a vignette as a method to elicit subject responses is~ becoming more widely used in both research (Davis ). A vignette is a carefully constructed description of a particular situation under investigation. Conversation, behavior, and surroundings are elaborated. In some cases, the vignette is written, while in other cases, it is portrayed in a &dquo;live&dquo; fashion using an audio and/or visual representation or even computer animation. In any event, the purpose of the vignette is to convey an idea or situation about which people make judgments and answer questions. The vignette is a method that simulates reality.

Problem statement:This study reports the development and validation of the Relational Leadership Questionnaire (RLQ). The consensus attributes of relational leadership are that the relational leader is caring, empowering, ethical, inclusive and has vision. These characteristics also reflect the newest theory and view of leadership in the psychological literature as well. Approach: For each of these 5 attributes, 10 Likert items were written using a 7 point response scale. These 50 items were administered to 141 high school teachers. Five factors were found for the RLQ and the 5 items with the highest factors loadings for each attribute were retained for the confirmatory study. Results: A confirmatory study was done with 434 elementary, middle and high school teachers who also responded to the LMX leadership scale (the "known marker" scale) and Mayer's trust scale. The hypothesized correlations with the LMX and trust scales were obtained as were the expected factor structures. The RLQ was in general validated, but gender, teaching level and teaching experience was found to significantly influence factor structures and scores on all three instruments. Conclusion: The meaning and implications of these findings are discussed as they are important to both research on and theories of leadership. These finding also have a number of key and important policy implications in the assessment and evaluation of educational leaders from school principals to university presidents and legislative committee members. These later implications are also discussed in detail and in terms of the different model of educational leadership and policy formulation they suggest.

No abstract