IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i4p21582440241295501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Not Liking the Likert? A Rasch Analysis of Forced-choice Format and Usefulness in Survey Design

Author

Listed:
  • Celeste Combrinck

Abstract

We have less time and focus than ever before, while the demand for attention is increasing. Therefore, it is no surprise that when answering questionnaires, we often choose to strongly agree or be neutral, producing problematic and unusable data. The current study investigated forced-choice (ipsative) format compared to the same questions on a Likert-type as a viable alternative. An established motivation questionnaire was administered in two versions, forced-choice and Likert-type, to 1088 first-year engineering students. Descriptive, non-parametric statistics and Rasch measurement models were applied to assess usefulness, validity and reliability. Results: The ipsative version had a higher response rate, less missing data, and the motivations emerged more clearly. Evidence for the reliability and validity of the forced-choice version was excellent. The forced-choice format is recommended as an alternative to the Likert types when collecting human or social survey data.

Suggested Citation

  • Celeste Combrinck, 2024. "Not Liking the Likert? A Rasch Analysis of Forced-choice Format and Usefulness in Survey Design," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:21582440241295501
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241295501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241295501
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241295501?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:4:p:21582440241295501. 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.