The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels

Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination

“…In particular, a) we ensured that only Russian tourists participated to reduce the coverage error (Moutinho & Chien, 2007), b) we reflect the perceptions of 14.2% of Russian tourists that visited Greece in 2014(HCAA, 2014 to avoid sampling error (Zikmund & Babin, 2007), c) we achieved an 83.86% response rate, which suggests that nonresponse error is not an issue (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 2001), and d) we added an "0 = I don't know/I cannot reply" option to the 7-point Likert scale to reduce measurement error (Weijters, Cabooter, & Schillewaert, 2010).…”

Bipolar Rating Scales: A Survey and Novel Correlation Measures Based on Nonlinear Bipolar Scoring Functions

“…(a) scales with a finite number n of categories [20], (b) scales with infinite number of categories, e.g., in the range from 0 to 1, from −1 to 1, from −10 to 10 [16,14,13]; (c) 2-point scale (n = 2) [31] or multipoint scale (n > 2); (d) scales with a neutral category [20] or without neutral category [10]; (e) scales with verbal labels only at poles [23] or fully labeled when all response categories are explicitly labeled [20,38]; (f) scales with symbolic labels of poles [24]; − 37 − (g) scales with numeric scores explicitly given [20] or not, e.g., given graphically with intervals [23]; (h) scales with positive numeric scores, e.g., 1, …, 5, or from 0 to 1 [20,16] or with both negative and positive scores, e.g., from −1 to 1 [14,9]; (i) scales without polarity of verbal labels; e.g., one of the Likert rating scales [20] contains responses: grade school, junior high school, high school, college, graduate and professional school with the scores 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 typical for bipolar scales; (j) scales with polarity of verbal categories, but without symmetry with respect to the neutral category, i.e., when some positive verbal category or concept has no corresponding opposite negative verbal category [9,26]; (k) scales explicitly using negation operation [40,16,39] or not [20]; (l) scales with non-numeric scores, e.g., with fuzzy sets [40,16]; (m) scales with verbal categories ordered from negative categories on the left to positive categories on the right, or in reverse order [20]; (n) scales with numeric scores increased from left to right: 1, …, 5 or in reverse order: 5, …, 1 [20]; (o) scales with scoring function being linear [20] or nonlinear [34,39] with respect to the indexes of the categories; (p) scales with several verbal labels or concepts assigned to one gradation of the scale, due to synonymy ...…”

The calibrated sigma method: An efficient remedy for between-group differences in response category use on Likert scales

“…The endpoint-labeled format was expected to lead to more endpoint responses than the fully labeled format for two reasons. First, if only the endpoints are labeled, they are comparatively more salient and less ambiguous than the other response categories, which should encourage greater endorsement of the endpoints (Weijters, Cabooter, & Schillewaert, 2010). Second, the labels of the endpoints in the endpoint-labeled condition are less intense and therefore more likely to be endorsed (de Langhe, Puntoni, Fernandes, & van Osselaer, 2011).…”