IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v52y2018i4d10.1007_s11135-017-0533-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Anna DeCastellarnau

    (RECSM-Universitat Pompeu Fabra
    Tilburg University)

Abstract

Quite a lot of research is available on the relationships between survey response scales’ characteristics and the quality of responses. However, it is often difficult to extract practical rules for questionnaire design from the wide and often mixed amount of empirical evidence. The aim of this study is to provide first a classification of the characteristics of response scales, mentioned in the literature, that should be considered when developing a scale, and second a summary of the main conclusions extracted from the literature regarding the impact these characteristics have on data quality. Thus, this paper provides an updated and detailed classification of the design decisions that matter in questionnaire development, and a summary of what is said in the literature about their impact on data quality. It distinguishes between characteristics that have been demonstrated to have an impact, characteristics for which the impact has not been found, and characteristics for which research is still needed to make a conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:52:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-017-0533-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4
    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/s11135-017-0533-4?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. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    2. McKEE J. McCLENDON, 1991. "Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Interview Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 60-103, August.
    3. Duane F. Alwin, 1997. "Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 25(3), pages 318-340, February.
    4. John R. Rossiter, 2011. "Measurement for the Social Sciences," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-1-4419-7158-6, December.
    5. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2006. "Design of Web Questionnaires : The Effect of Layout in Rating Scales," Other publications TiSEM 9401f6c5-0275-400e-ac97-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. McKEE J. McCLENDON & DUANE F. ALWIN, 1993. "No-Opinion Filters and Attitude Measurement Reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(4), pages 438-464, May.
    7. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Leah Melani Christian & Nicholas L. Parsons & Don A. Dillman, 2009. "Designing Scalar Questions for Web Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 393-425, February.
    10. K. Levin & C. Currie, 2014. "Reliability and Validity of an Adapted Version of the Cantril Ladder for Use with Adolescent Samples," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 1047-1063, November.
    11. Willem E. Saris & Melanie Revilla, 2016. "Correction for Measurement Errors in Survey Research: Necessary and Possible," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 1005-1020, July.
    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. Wonyoung Yang & Hyeun Jun Moon & Jin Yong Jeon, 2019. "Comparison of Response Scales as Measures of Indoor Environmental Perception in Combined Thermal and Acoustic Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Aarti Sharma & Taghreed Abunada & Sawsan S. Said & Rana M. Kurdi & Atiyeh M. Abdallah & Marawan Abu-Madi, 2022. "Clinical Practicum Assessment for Biomedical Science Program from Graduates’ Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Zhou, Fei & Su, Qiulai & Mou, Jian, 2021. "Understanding the effect of website logos as animated spokescharacters on the advertising: A lens of parasocial interaction relationship," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Jon Roozenbeek & Stefan M. Herzog & Michael Geers & Ralf Kurvers & Mubashir Sultan & Sander van der Linden, 2022. "Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(3), pages 547-573, May.
    7. Jane Kirkham & Elaine Chapman & Sally Male, 2023. "Measuring Motivation for Mathematics Course Choice in Secondary School Students: Interrelationships Between Cost and Other Situated Expectancy-Value Theory Components," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    8. Giovana Vitória Nunes Leite Duarte & Susana Pereira Antunes Procópio & Angélica Cotta Lobo Leite Carneiro & Leandro de Morais Cardoso, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Tool for Assessing Sustainable Social Practices in Food Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Konstantin Gavras & Jan Karem Höhne & Annelies G. Blom & Harald Schoen, 2022. "Innovating the collection of open‐ended answers: The linguistic and content characteristics of written and oral answers to political attitude questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 872-890, July.
    10. Wonyoung Yang & Jin Yong Jeon, 2021. "Usability of Visual Analogue Scales in Assessing Human Perception of Sound with University Students Using a Web-Based Tablet Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Arne Weigold & Ingrid K. Weigold & Migyeong Jang & Emily M. Thornton, 2022. "College students’ and Mechanical Turk workers’ environmental factors while completing online surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2589-2612, August.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:547-573 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. David Fortunato & Matthew V. Hibbing & Tessa Provins, 2022. "Hurdles to inference: The demographic correlates of survey breakoff and shirking," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(2), pages 455-465, March.
    14. Choi, Young Rok & Phan, Phillip H. & Choi, Jaepil, 2020. "Formal governance, interfirm coordination, and performance in partnerships: An empirical investigation of a mediation model," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 413-424.
    15. Marc Asensio & Melanie Revilla, 2022. "Number of answer categories for bipolar item specific scales in face-to-face surveys: Does more mean better?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1413-1433, June.
    16. Karen Gorissen & Bert Weijters & Berre Deltomme, 2024. "Green versus Grey Framing: Exploring the Mechanism behind the Negative Footprint Illusion in Environmental Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-10, February.
    17. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Connection to Nature Boosts Adolescents’ Mental Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.

    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. Cabooter, Elke & Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2016. "Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2574-2584.
    2. Yüksel, Atila, 2017. "A critique of “Response Bias” in the tourism, travel and hospitality research," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 376-384.
    3. Bart Buelens & Jan A. van den Brakel, 2015. "Measurement Error Calibration in Mixed-mode Sample Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 391-426, August.
    4. Dana Garbarski & Nora Cate Schaeffer & Jennifer Dykema, 2019. "The Effects of Features of Survey Measurement on Self-Rated Health: Response Option Order and Scale Orientation," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 545-560, April.
    5. Weijters, Bert & Millet, Kobe & Cabooter, Elke, 2021. "Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103.
    6. Brauner, Jacob, 2020. "Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats," SocArXiv dk9bc, Center for Open Science.
    7. Eline Moens & Louis Lippens & Philippe Sterkens & Johannes Weytjens & Stijn Baert, 2022. "The COVID-19 crisis and telework: a research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 729-753, June.
    8. Zsuzsa Lábiscsák-Erdélyi & Ilona Veres-Balajti & Annamária Somhegyi & Karolina Kósa, 2022. "Self-Esteem Is Independent Factor and Moderator of School-Related Psychosocial Determinants of Life Satisfaction in Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Andreas Jørgensen & Christina Bjørk Petersen & Martin Eghøj & Mette Toftager, 2021. "When Movement Moves: Study Protocol for a Multi-Method Pre/Post Evaluation Study of Two Programmes; the Danish Team Twin and Cycling Without Age," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Ahrholdt, Dennis C. & Gudergan, Siegfried P. & Ringle, Christian M., 2019. "Enhancing loyalty: When improving consumer satisfaction and delight matters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 18-27.
    11. Stylos, Nikolaos & Vassiliadis, Chris A. & Bellou, Victoria & Andronikidis, Andreas, 2016. "Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 40-60.
    12. Elke Cabooter & Bert Weijters & Alain Beuckelaer & Eldad Davidov, 2017. "Is extreme response style domain specific? Findings from two studies in four countries," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2605-2622, November.
    13. Yekaterina Chzhen & Irene Moor & William Pickett & Emilia Toczydlowska & Gonneke Stevens & UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2016. "Family Affluence and Inequality in Adolescent Health and Life Satisfaction: Evidence from the HBSC study 2002-2014," Papers inwopa836, Innocenti Working Papers.
    14. Melanie Revilla & Jan Karem Höhne & Tobias Rettig, 2023. "Differences in measurement quality depending on recall: results for a question about trust in the parliament," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2125-2146, June.
    15. Dolnicar, Sara & Juvan, Emil, 2019. "Drivers of plate waste," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Maja Gajda & Agnieszka Małkowska-Szkutnik & Wojciech Rodzeń, 2022. "Self-Regulation in Adolescents: Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Self-Regulation Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    18. de Bruijne, M.A., 2015. "Designing web surveys for the multi-device internet," Other publications TiSEM 19e4d446-a62b-4a95-8691-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    20. Inmyung Song & Hye-Jae Lee, 2022. "Predictors of subjective well-being in Korean men and women: Analysis of nationwide panel survey data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.

    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:52:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-017-0533-4. 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.