The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability
Abstract
A total of 1,247 college students participated in this study on the effect of scale format on the reliability of Likert-type rating scales. The number of response categories ranged from 3 to 9. Anchor labels on the scales were provided for each response option or for the end points only. The results indicated that the scales with fewresponse categories tended to result in lower reliability, especially lower test-retest reliability. The scales with all the response options clearly labeled were likely to yield higher test-retest reliability than those with only the end points labeled. Scale design that leads to consistent participant responses as indicated by test-retest reliability should be preferred.
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
Cites
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 5×
“Because high internal consistency reliability, as commonly measured by coefficient α, does not necessarily guarantee high test-retest reliability (Cortina, 1993; Crocker & Algina, 1986), the impact of scale design on test-retest reliability warrants direct investigation.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale
Symonds, P. M. (1924) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0074469 · Cited by 194
Determinants of Scale Response: Label versus Position
Wildt, A. R., & Mazis, M. B. (1978) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377801500209 · Cited by 105
Cited by
Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87
Artino, A. R., La Rochelle, J. S., Dezee, K. J., & Gehlbach, H. (2014) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.889814 · Cited by 1,450
Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Burwinkle, T. M. (2007) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-1 · Cited by 1,075
Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004 · Cited by 801
A Review of Key Likert Scale Development Advances: 1995–2019
Jebb, A. T., Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547 · Cited by 770
Belton, I., MacDonald, A., Wright, G., & Hamlin, I. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.002 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- Authors
- Weng, L.-J.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 956-972
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2137071805
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.91
- 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: Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164404268674
- The paper
- Weng, L.-J. (2004). Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674
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.
