IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i1p21582440241230363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Number of Response Categories Impact Validity Evidence in Self-Report Measures? A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed A. A. Abulela
  • Mustafa Ali Khalaf

Abstract

The optimal number of responses categories (NRC) is among the most discussed, yet least decided, topic in self-report measures. In addition, there is a dearth of scoping reviews that summarize its impact on validity evidence (e.g., evidence-based on internal structure). To that end, we conducted a scoping review of methodological literature to provide self-report measures developers and applied researchers with evidence-based recommendations when selecting the optimal NRC. Given the inconsistent results reported in previous research, a key recommendation, when conducting cognitive interviews, is to investigate the interpretation of response options by a sample of potential participants who have varying perspectives. This procedure is paramount to ascertain that response options are accurately interpreted and function as intended. The present scoping review is expected to become a valuable resource for applied researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions about the optimal NRC, taking into account validity evidence, and therefore contributes to the literature of educational and psychological measurement and research methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed A. A. Abulela & Mustafa Ali Khalaf, 2024. "Does the Number of Response Categories Impact Validity Evidence in Self-Report Measures? A Scoping Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241230363
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241230363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241230363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241230363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241230363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.