Designing Response Categories of Agreement Scales for Cross‐national Surveys in East Asia: The Approach of the Japanese General Social Surveys

Abstract

The existing cross-national surveys use various types of scales including 2-point, 3-point, 4-point, and 5-point scales, and the translations of response statements vary depending on responsible organizations even within the same country. This paper examines how differences in response categories of the agreement scale may impact the distribution of responses in cross-national surveys and reports the strategies for designing the agreement scale for the East Asian Social Survey (EASS) project. Among the four EASS countries and region, the response pattern of the Japanese is somewhat different from that of Taiwanese, Korean, and Chinese people; the Japanese prefer to give a mid-point or close-to-the-middle response instead of a definite expression of agreement or disagreement. Social surveys in Japan often handle this tendency by avoiding the use of strong adverbs and excluding mid-point and off-scale options from agreement scales. Based on examinations of existing surveys results and conducting pretests, the following strategies to ensure procedural equivalence as well as interpretive equivalence in the EASS project were contrived: (i) The agreement scale was designed to have a sufficient variability in response distributions for all countries and the region; a 7-point scale with the adverb "strongly" at both ends and a mid-point was adopted. (ii) The translations of response statements as well as questions for all teams were carefully checked and adjusted through several languages.i jjs_1111 97..111

Association between housing tenure and self-rated health in Japan: Findings from a nationwide cross-sectional survey

“…Is it very good, good, fair, poor, very poor?” The OECD Health Statistics [15] has recommended this as a standard form of question about perceived health status, and showed that the rate of people who report their health as good or better is very low in Japan, about 30% in 2011 compared to about 70% on average in the OECD and about 90% in the United States, New Zealand, and Canada. One reason why Japan has a low rate of people reporting to be in good health is that Japanese people have a tendency to avoid giving a direct answer and like moderation, with the result that in responses to questionnaires, there is a marked tendency to concentrate on a mid-point [31]. Therefore, although the OECD Health Statistics has considered people rating their health to good or very good as those who are in good health, Japanese epidemiological surveys have commonly adopted the definition of good health as including the middle scale of SRH [26–28].…”

Neighborhood environments and self-rated health in Mainland China, Japan and South Korea

“…The correlation was .06 between built and natural environments, .15 between built and social environments, and .27 between national and social environments, suggesting these are three distinct albeit related aspects of neighborhood environments. In addition, previous research showed that the Japanese are less likely to express pros and cons clearly and their answers to agreement scales tend to concentrate on a mid-point [ 71 ], and thus a one-point increase in a particular index in one country may have a different meaning and cannot be directly compared to one in another. To adjust for this tendency, we also created standardized neighborhood environment indexes by standardizing responses to each question within each country and then averaging the standardized scores of the three items in each neighborhood environment index.…”

Nontraditional Family‐Related Attitudes in Japan: Macro and Micro Determinants

“…For some analyses, the two “agree” responses (strongly agree and agree) are combined into a single category, and similarly the two “disagree” responses are combined. In the surveys on which this study is based, as is typical in Japanese surveys in general (Shishido, Iwai, and Yasuda 2009), a large proportion (by international standards) of respondents chose the middle (neutral) category. To check whether this is due to a “response set,” with large numbers of respondents automatically picking the middle category on all items, we looked at patterns of response overlap across items.…”