IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v43y2014i1p73-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree–Disagree Scales

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie A. Revilla
  • Willem E. Saris
  • Jon A. Krosnick

Abstract

Although agree–disagree (AD) rating scales suffer from acquiescence response bias, entail enhanced cognitive burden, and yield data of lower quality, these scales remain popular with researchers due to practical considerations (e.g., ease of item preparation, speed of administration, and reduced administration costs). This article shows that if researchers want to use AD scales, they should offer 5 answer categories rather than 7 or 11, because the latter yield data of lower quality. This is shown using data from four multitrait-multimethod experiments implemented in the third round of the European Social Survey. The quality of items with different rating scale lengths were computed and compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie A. Revilla & Willem E. Saris & Jon A. Krosnick, 2014. "Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree–Disagree Scales," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(1), pages 73-97, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:73-97
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124113509605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124113509605
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124113509605?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Willem Saris & Theresia van Wijk & Annette Scherpenzeel, 1998. "Validity and Reliability of Subjective Social Indicators: The effect of different measures of association," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 173-199, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buonincontri, P. & Morvillo, A. & Okumus, F. & van Niekerk, M., 2017. "Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations: Empirical findings from Naples," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 264-277.
    2. Mohammed Saud Mira* & Dr. Yap Voon Choong & Dr. Chan Kok Thim, 2018. "The Role of Job Satisfaction as Mediator Between Human Resource Practices and Employees' Performance Among the Cargos' Employees at Saudi Ports Authority Based on the Motivation Theories," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 91-105:4.
    3. George Darko & Kaj Björkqvist & Karin Österman, 2019. "Workplace Bullying and Psychological Distress in Public Institutions in Ghana," European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 6, January -.
    4. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Felderer, Barbara & Repke, Lydia & Weber, Wiebke & Schweisthal, jonas & Bothmann, Ludwig, 2024. "Predicting the Validity and Reliability of Survey Questions," OSF Preprints hkngd, Center for Open Science.
    2. Peiro, Amado, 2006. "Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: Some international evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 348-365, April.
    3. Ulrich Schimmack & Richard Lucas, 2010. "Environmental Influences on Well-Being: A Dyadic Latent Panel Analysis of Spousal Similarity," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Michaeal Hudler & Rudolf Richter, 2002. "Cross-national Comparison of the Quality of Life in Europe: Inventory of Surveys and Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 217-228, June.
    5. Mònica González & Germà Coenders & Marc Saez & Ferran Casas, 2010. "Non-linearity, Complexity and Limited Measurement in the Relationship Between Satisfaction with Specific Life Domains and Satisfaction with Life as a Whole," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 335-352, June.
    6. Robert Cummins, 2003. "Normative Life Satisfaction: Measurement Issues and a Homeostatic Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 225-256, November.
    7. Ulrich Schimmack & Peter Krause & Gert Wagner & Jürgen Schupp, 2010. "Stability and Change of Well Being: An Experimentally Enhanced Latent State-Trait-Error Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 19-31, January.
    8. Fischer, Justina AV, 2009. "Subjective Well-Being as Welfare Measure: Concepts and Methodology," MPRA Paper 16619, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:somere:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:73-97. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.