The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Missing Data in Likert Ratings: A Comparison of Replacement Methods
Abstract
The effects of using two methods (item mean and person mean) for replacing missing data in Likert scales were studied. The results showed that both methods were good representations of the original data when both the number of respondents with missing data and the number of items missing were 20% or less. As the numbers of missing items and of respondents with missing data increased for the person mean substitution method, a spurious increase in the inter-item correlations (and, therefore, reliability) for the sale was produced. The item mean substitution reduced the reliability estimates of the scale. These results suggest caution in the use of the person mean substitution method as the numbers of missing items and respondents increase.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Missing Data: Five Practical Guidelines
Newman, D. A. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114548590 · Cited by 1,411
Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: a comparison of imputation methods
Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-57 · Cited by 650
Missing Data in Multiple Item Scales: A Monte Carlo Analysis of Missing Data Techniques
Roth, P. L., Switzer, F. S., & Switzer, D. M. (1999) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819923001 · Cited by 344
A comparison of item-level and scale-level multiple imputation for questionnaire batteries
Gottschall, A. C., West, S. G., & Enders, C. K. (2012) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.640589 · Cited by 225
Schomerus, G., Stolzenburg, S., Freitag, S., Speerforck, S., Janowitz, D., Evans-Lacko, S., Muehlan, H., & Schmidt, S. (2019) · European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s00406-018-0896-0 · Cited by 214
Metadata
- Authors
- Downey, R. G., & King, C. V.
- Venue
- The Journal of General Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-191
- ISSN
- 0022-1309 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-0888
- OpenAlex
- W2107634410
- Cited by
- 654
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Missing Data in Likert Ratings: A Comparison of Replacement Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00221309809595542
- The paper
- Downey, R. G., & King, C. V. (1998). Missing Data in Likert Ratings: A Comparison of Replacement Methods. The Journal of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309809595542
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
