Equivalence of Questionnaire Items With Varying Response Formats

Frisbie, David A.; Brandenburg, Dale C.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1979.tb00085.x

Cited by 27 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example: inclusion of all points in the response range along with their semantic anchors is to be preferred to the inclusion or labelling of only the end-point extremes of the response scales (Frisbie 1979); care should always be taken with the scaling intervals used in response scales related to estimations of quantity so as to avoid various 'context effect' biases (Rockwood et al 1997); and pilot-testing is an important part of the design process (Reynolds et al 1993).…”

Section: Further Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design‐focused evaluation

Smith

2008

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper an approach to the writing of evaluation questions is outlined and developed which focuses attention on the question of the effectiveness of an educational design for bringing about the learning it is intended to facilitate. The approach develops from the idea that all educational designs rely on instructional alignment, implicitly or explicitly, and succeed or fail to the extent to which the implementation of that alignment is effective. The approach to evaluation that is described, design-focused evaluation, utilises students' experiences of instructional designs and strategies and focuses questions on students' awareness of the effectiveness of those strategies for facilitating the intended learning outcomes. Detailed advice is given on the construction of items that fit with the approach described and that maximise the generalisability of the approach to most if not all educational settings and designs.

show abstract

Section: Further Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design‐focused evaluation

Smith

2008

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Klockars and Yamagishi (1988) subsequently investigated the relationship between the label and its position on the scale. Their results suggest that the value actually assigned to a category label varies with its position in a scale, a compromise between the semantic value of the category label and the ordinal value of the category position.The research in this area (Frisbie & Brandenburg, 1979;Lam & Klockars, 1982) appeared to demonstrate an effect for response labels. However, these studies have been limited to the question of leniency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…They used the median scores to construct their packed scales but chose not to use these scale values in scoring the student ratings of instruction. We refer to this scoring method as category label scoring.Both Frisbie and Brandenburg (1979) and Lam and Klockars (1982) seemed to assume that the meaning of a scale label is relatively independent of the ordinal position of the category that it is assigned. That is, the label fair has the same meaning to a respondent, whether it is assigned to the second, third, or fourth category position of a 5-point rating scale.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Despite this appearance of simplicity, various authors have suggested that the labels assigned to scale categories do influence raters. It has been speculated that leniency of ratings can be reduced by category labels (Guilford, 1936;Symonds, 1931), that the range of ratings across stimuli is influenced by the choice of category labels (Frisbie & Brandenburg, 1979;Lam & Klockars, 1982), and that the equal interval properties of the response scale depend on an appropriate choice of labels (Spector, 1976).The issues of range restriction and leniency are particularly potent inRequests for reprints should be sent to Trudy Dunham, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 178 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, Lam and Klockars (1982) noted that it was difficult to know how generalizable the phenomenon of packing would be over item content. Lam and Klockars adapted the Frisbie and Brandenburg (1979) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Scale Anchors on Student Ratings of Instructors

Dunham

Davison²

1991

Applied Measurement in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the effect of item wording on rating responses has long been acknowledged, much less attention has been directed toward the effect of rating anchors. This study tested assumptions that packing or skewing the response options of a scale reduces the common measurement problems of leniency and range restriction in instructor ratings. Packing the scale was found to reduce leniency, although this finding is dependent on the scoring procedure used. Packing the scale had no effect on the restriction of range problem. Further analyses determined that both the label and position of the label on the response scale influence respondent selection of a category, with position the more dominant. Similar results were found for both global and specific items.Rating scales are one of the most frequently used tools to measure attitudes and opinions. Research on rating scales has addressed issues of item wording, item ordering, and the optimal number of response options (Masters, 1974;Ory, 1982). The selection of response scale categories, however, appears so obvious that often little attention is paid to their wording. Despite this appearance of simplicity, various authors have suggested that the labels assigned to scale categories do influence raters. It has been speculated that leniency of ratings can be reduced by category labels (Guilford, 1936;Symonds, 1931), that the range of ratings across stimuli is influenced by the choice of category labels (Frisbie & Brandenburg, 1979;Lam & Klockars, 1982), and that the equal interval properties of the response scale depend on an appropriate choice of labels (Spector, 1976).The issues of range restriction and leniency are particularly potent inRequests for reprints should be sent to Trudy Dunham, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 178 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. DUNHAM AND DAVISONeducation. Instructor ratings are negatively skewed and differences in mean ratings across instructors are often relatively small (Cashin, 1985(Cashin, , 1987. Range restriction enhances the difficulty of distinguishing between instructors for decisions such as teaching awards, tenure and promotion, and merit pay. Leniency can be a problem to the extent that it reduces the probability of identification and rectification of instructional problems.No one, to our knowledge, has investigated whether the labels assigned to scale categories do influence the variability in the resulting ratings. The effect of labels on leniency, defined as the average rating assigned to instructors, was studied by Frisbie and Brandenburg (1979). They found that when every response category was labeled, the mean rating of instructors was lower than when only the end points were labeled. Lam and Klockars (1982) suggested that Frisbie and Brandenburg found less leniency when they labeled every scale category because their labels were a positively packed set of scale anchors.Scale anchors are often assumed to be balanced, that is, to be composed of labels forming an equal interval contin...

show abstract

Life Satisfaction Ratings and Response Formats

Mazaheri

2023

Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Equivalence of Questionnaire Items With Varying Response Formats

Cited by 27 publications

References 4 publications

Design‐focused evaluation

Design‐focused evaluation

Effects of Scale Anchors on Student Ratings of Instructors

Life Satisfaction Ratings and Response Formats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About