Assessing Three Sources of Misresponse to Reversed Likert Items
1Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Management, Boston University.
swain@bu.eduDanny Weathers2,
2Assistant Professor of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University.
weathers@lsu.eduRonald W. Niedrich3
3Associate Professor of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University.
niedrich@lsu.eduAbstract
Data collected through multi-item Likert scales that contain reversed items often exhibit problems, such as unexpected factor structures and diminished scale reliabilities. These problems arise when respondents select responses on the same side of the scale neutral point for both reversed and nonreversed items, a phenomenon the authors call “misresponse.” Across four experiments and an exploratory study using published data, the authors find that misresponse to reversed Likert items averaged approximately 20%, twice the level identified as problematic in previous simulation studies. Counter to prevailing thought, the patterns of misresponse and response latency across manipulated items could not be attributed to respondent inattention or acquiescence. Instead, the pattern supports an item verification difficulty explanation, which holds that task complexity, and thus misresponse and response latency, increases with the number of cognitive operations required for a respondent to compare a scale item with his or her belief. The observed results are well explained by the constituent comparison model.
Cited by
Citation | PDF (141 KB) | PDF Plus (141 KB)
Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2010.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 13-Jul-2010.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Feb-2010.
Abstract | PDF (291 KB) | PDF Plus (283 KB)
Online publication date: 1-Mar-2009.
CrossRef
