IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i4d10.1007_s11135-024-01846-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online relationships versus face-to-face relationships. Proposal of a methodology for the holistic analysis of Likert-type scales

Author

Listed:
  • M. Isabel Landaluce-Calvo

    (University of Burgos)

Abstract

The questionnaire is a widely used instrument in social research for collecting information. One of the most important design decisions is the choice of one (or more) measurement scale(s). A common scale for rating/opinion questions is the Likert-type scale ranging from 0 or 1 (lowest rating/strongest disagreement) to 10 (highest rating/strongest agreement). Its success is based, among other things, on the advantage of being able to treat the scale from different perspectives (nominal, ordinal, or interval). Making the right choice is not an easy task for the researcher, as the perspective selected determines the methodology to be used for analysis and the potential results. This paper proposes a methodological strategy that facilitates this phase by presenting a protocol that allows the simultaneous analysis of two versions of the scale, nominal and interval. The proposed idea is based on the tabulation of the two scales in a mixed data matrix and it is advised to conduct an exploratory analysis through Multiple Factor Analysis. This technique maintains and compares the idiosyncrasies of each scale. The versatility and suitability of the proposal is illustrated by real research on social and affective relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Isabel Landaluce-Calvo, 2024. "Online relationships versus face-to-face relationships. Proposal of a methodology for the holistic analysis of Likert-type scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3863-3885, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01846-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-024-01846-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-024-01846-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-024-01846-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guy Moors, 2008. "Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 779-794, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anna Gottard & Maria Iannario & Domenico Piccolo, 2016. "Varying uncertainty in CUB models," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 10(2), pages 225-244, June.
    2. Kristiina Janhunen, 2012. "A comparison of Likert-type rating and visually-aided rating in a simple moral judgment experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1471-1477, August.
    3. Paola Annoni & Nicholas Charron, 2019. "Measurement Assessment in Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Rasch Modelling on a Measure of Institutional Quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 31-60, January.
    4. Mingnan Liu & Frederick G. Conrad & Sunghee Lee, 2017. "Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 941-958, March.
    5. Marek Cech & Martin Januska, 2020. "Evaluation of Risk Management Maturity in the Czech Automotive Industry: Model and Methodology," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(55), pages 824-824, August.
    6. Liu Mingnan & Keusch Florian, 2017. "Effects of Scale Direction on Response Style of Ordinal Rating Scales," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(1), pages 137-154, March.
    7. Alain De Beuckelaer & Stef Toonen & Eldad Davidov, 2013. "On the optimal number of scale points in graded paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2869-2882, August.
    8. Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa & Laura Limiñana-Bravo, 2019. "An Instrument to Measure Mental Health Professionals’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Service Users’ Rights," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Krähenmann, Lea, 2024. "Mit Selbstoptimierung zum individuellen Glück?," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 9(1), pages 1341-1383.
    10. Chau-kiu Cheung & Raymond Ngan, 2012. "Filtered Life Satisfaction and Its Socioeconomic Determinants in Hong Kong," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 223-242, November.
    11. Alice Barth & Andreas Schmitz, 2018. "Response quality and ideological dispositions: an integrative approach using geometric and classifying techniques," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 175-194, January.
    12. Stefania Capecchi & Domenico Piccolo, 2017. "Dealing with heterogeneity in ordinal responses," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2375-2393, September.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01846-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.