The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Psychometric Evaluation of 4-Point and 6-Point Likert-Type Scales in Relation to Reliability and Validity
Open accessAbstract
Reliability and validity of 4-point and 6-point scales were assessed using a new model-based ap proach to fit empirical data. Different measurement models were fit by confirmatory factor analyses of a multitrait-multimethod covariance matrix. 165 gradu ate students responded to nine items measuring three quantitative attitudes. Separation of method from trait variance led to greater reduction of reliability and heterotrait-monomethod coefficients for the 6-point scale than for the 4-point scale. Criterion-related valid ity was not affected by the number of scale points. The issue of selecting 4- versus 6-point scales may not be generally resolvable, but may rather depend on the empirical setting. Response conditions theorized to in fluence the use of scale options are discussed to pro vide directions for further research. Index terms: Likert-type scales, multitrait-multimethod matrix, reli ability, scale options, validity.
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
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables
Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x · Cited by 1,778
Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291393 · Cited by 1,481
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
Cited by
Likert Scale: Explored and Explained
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015) · British Journal of Applied Science & Technology · doi:10.9734/bjast/2015/14975 · Cited by 3,870
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5 · Cited by 2,106
Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale
Chyung, S. Y. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017) · Performance Improvement · doi:10.1002/pfi.21727 · Cited by 846
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 Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales
Leung, S.-O. (2011) · Journal of Social Service Research · doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.580697 · Cited by 706
Metadata
- Authors
- Chang, L.
- Venue
- Applied Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-215
- ISSN
- 0146-6216 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3497
- OpenAlex
- W2023727185
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A Psychometric Evaluation of 4-Point and 6-Point Likert-Type Scales in Relation to Reliability and Validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014662169401800302
- The paper
- Chang, L. (1994). A Psychometric Evaluation of 4-Point and 6-Point Likert-Type Scales in Relation to Reliability and Validity. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169401800302
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.
