The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
This study reviews 60 papers using a Likert scale and published between 2012 – 2021. Screening for literature review uses the PRISMA method. The data analysis technique was carried out through data extraction, then synthesized in a structured manner using the narrative method. To achieve credible research results at the stage of the data collection and data analysis process, a group discussion forum (FGD) was conducted. The findings show that only 10% of studies use a measurement scale with an even answer choice category (4, 6, 8, or 10 choices). In general, (90%) of research uses a measurement instrument that involves a Likert scale with odd response choices (5, 7, 9, or 11) and the most popular researchers use a Likert scale with a total response of 5 points. The use of a rating scale with an odd number of responses of more than five points (especially on a seven-point scale) is the most effective in terms of reliability and validity coefficients, but if the researcher wants to direct respondents to one side, then a scale with an even number of responses (six points) is possible. more suitable. The presence of response bias and central tendency bias can affect the validity and reliability of the use of the Likert scale instrument.
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
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
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
Analyzing and Interpreting Data From Likert-Type Scales
Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-5-4-18 · Cited by 3,044
Dawes, J. (2008) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.1177/147078530805000106 · Cited by 2,107
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5 · Cited by 2,106
Taherdoost, H. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3205040 · Cited by 2,047
Likert scales: how to (ab)use them
Jamieson, S. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x · Cited by 1,602
Boone, H., & Boone, D. (2012) · Journal of Extension · doi:10.34068/joe.50.02.48 · Cited by 1,407
Kokolakis, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 · Cited by 1,229
Bolarinwa, O. (2015) · Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/1117-1936.173959 · Cited by 1,148
Cited by
Scientific evidence for clinical text summarization using large language models: scoping review
Bednarczyk, L., Reichenpfader, D., Gaudet-Blavignac, C., Ette, A. K., Zaghir, J., Zheng, Y., Bensahla, A., Bjelogrlic, M., & Lovis, C. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/68998 · Cited by 83
From Topic to Thesis: Critical Engagement with Generative AI in Thesis Preparation
Virkki, O. T., Naeem, U., & Styve, A. (2026) · 2026 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon67543.2026.11574181
Metadata
- Authors
- Kusmaryono, I., Wijayanti, D., & Maharani, H. R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Educational Methodology
- Published
- 2022-11-15
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-637
- ISSN
- 2469-9632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4296239696
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 59
- FWCI
- 25.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
- The paper
- Kusmaryono, I., Wijayanti, D., & Maharani, H. R. (2022). Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review. International Journal of Educational Methodology. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
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.