Cited by 277Psychometric Methodologies and TestingDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of the reliability and validity of Likert‐type scales for people with intellectual disability

Hartley, S. L., MacLean, W. E.·2006·Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abstract

Background Likert‐type scales are increasingly being used among people with intellectual disability (ID). These scales offer an efficient method for capturing a wide range of variance in self‐reported attitudes and behaviours. This review is an attempt to evaluate the reliability and validity of Likert‐type scales in people with ID. Methods Fifty‐one studies reporting response rates, response bias, reliability and validity of Likert‐type scales among adolescents and adults with ID were reviewed. Results Low response rates were found among adolescents and adults with moderate to profound ID, when pictorial representations of response alternatives were not employed, and for Likert‐type scales with self‐descriptive statements. Response bias was evident, particularly among adolescents and adults with moderate to profound ID. Likert‐type scales have better reliability and validity among adolescents and adults with borderline IQ or mild ID. Pretests and clarifying questions increase reliability and validity. Conclusions Likert‐type scales should include pictorial representations of response alternatives, a single set of one or two word response descriptors, clarifying questions, and pretests, and are best used with adolescents and adults with borderline IQ to mild ID.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00844.x

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence suggests that patients with learning disabilities demonstrate a significantly better response rate to smiling and frowning faces as opposed to numerical or word scales.

    “Smiley faces were incorporated rather than words or numbers, as evidence suggests that patients with learning disabilities demonstrate a significantly better response rate to smiling and frowning faces as opposed to numerical or word scales.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.1177/002224378001700401 · DOI
  2. 10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0157:FSOTSA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  3. 10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0457:CMAAOQ>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  4. Sigelman C. K., 1983, Communicating with Mentally Retarded Persons: Asking Questions and Getting Answers

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hartley, S. L., & MacLean, W. E.
Affiliations
University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
Hartley, S. L.
Venue
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-25
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
813-827
ISSN
  • 0964-2633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2788
OpenAlex
W2078740837
Cited by
273
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Likert scale, intellectual disability, scale reliability, scale validity, response rate, response bias, clarification questions, pretest, mild intellectual disability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attitude, Behavior, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Psychometrics, Self Disclosure, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

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