Likert Scale: Explored and Explained
Open accessAbstract
Likert scale is applied as one of the most fundamental and frequently used psychometric tools in educational and social sciences research. Simultaneously, it is also subjected to a lot of debates and controversies in regards with the analysis and inclusion of points on the scale. With this context, through reviewing the available literature and then clubbing the received information with coherent scientific thinking, this paper attempts to gradually build a construct around Likert scale. This analytical review begins with the necessity of psychometric tools like Likert scale andits variants and focuses on some convoluted issues like validity, reliability and analysis of the scale.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Participants rated their satisfaction with SceneVR on a 7-point Likert scale, reporting overall high satisfaction (M = 5.92, SD = 1.24).
“Following the task-based assessment, participants rated their satisfaction with SceneVR on a 7-point Likert scale [36], with 7 being the highest, reporting overall high satisfaction ( 𝑀 = 5 . 92, 𝑆𝐷 = 1 . 24).”
From From Screen Reading to "Scene Reading" in SceneVR: Touch-Based Interaction Techniques for Use in Virtual Reality by Blind and Low-Vision Users (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trunfio, M., Lucia, M. D., Campana, S., & Magnelli, A. (2022) · Journal of Heritage Tourism · doi:10.1080/1743873x.2020.1850742 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Stakeholders prioritization of climate-smart agriculture interventions: Evaluation of a framework
Khatri-Chhetri, A., Pant, A., Aggarwal, P. K., Vasireddy, V. V., & Yadav, A. (2019) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.002 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
The role of learners’ competencies in artificial intelligence education
Sanusi, I. T., Olaleye, S. A., Agbo, F. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100098 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Students' privacy concerns in learning analytics: Model development
Mutimukwe, C., Viberg, O., Oberg, L., & Cerratto‐Pargman, T. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13234 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Alabdali, M. A., & Salam, M. A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141912269 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Consumer acceptance of microalgae as a novel food‐where are we now? And how to get further
Olsen, M. L., Olsen, K., & Jensen, P. E. (2024) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/ppl.14337 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Chia, F., Huang, W.-Y., Huang, H., & Wu, C.-E. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021628 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Wong, T. K. Y., Colasante, T., & Malti, T. (2023) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101253 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
IdeationWeb: Tracking the Evolution of Design Ideas in Human-AI Co-Creation
Shen, H., Shen, L., Wu, W., & Zhang, K. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713375 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Comparing AI-generated and human peer reviews: A study on 11 articles
Marrella, D., Jiang, S., Ipaktchi, K., & Liverneaux, P. (2025) · Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.hansur.2025.102225 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Hao, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, B., Amarantidis, G., & Ghannam, R. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.2025.3536105 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“It consisted of two multiple-choice questions, one open-ended question and twelve closed-ended 5-point Likert Scale questions [65].”
Franken, K., Schuffelen, P., ten Klooster, P., van Doesum, K., Westerhof, G., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.985408 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Qi, J. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672221081270 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Zhang, Y., Albattat, A., Rehman, A. U., & Azam, S. M. F. (2025) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2025.2582220 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Kneitmix, M. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746364 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Following the task-based assessment, participants rated their satisfaction with SceneVR on a 7-point Likert scale [36], with 7 being the highest, reporting overall high satisfaction ( 𝑀 = 5 .”
Bergantiňos, M. (2025) · Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.490606
Let’s read the log: root cause analysis of railway test execution logs with large language models
Hermawan, R., Bucaioni, A., Enoiu, E., Afzal, W., Saadatmand, M., Zaimovic, N., & Ibtasham, M. S. (2026) · Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11334-026-00657-1
“Likert scales offer established validity for measuring complex cognitive processes, such as diagnostic reasoning [33].”
Generative AI Usage and Information Literacy Skills among University Students in North-West Nigeria
Dada, K. S. J., & Quadir, O. R. (2026) · Data Science: Journal of Computing and Applied Informatics · doi:10.32734/jocai.v10.i1-24709
PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs?
Pulipaka, S., Chen, O., Sharma, M., Bajwa, T. S., Raina, V., & Sheth, I. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01146
- Authors
- Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D.
- Affiliations
- Gandhi Medical College (IN)
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal (IN)
- Venue
- British Journal of Applied Science & Technology
- Publisher
- Sciencedomain International
- Published
- 2015-01-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 396-403
- ISSN
- 2231-0843 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2327678559
- Cited by
- 3,870
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 577 · 2025: 739 · 2024: 589 · 2023: 601 · 2022: 511 · 2021: 393 · 2020: 278 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 26.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- journalcjast.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- British Journal of Applied Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
- Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- Likert scale, scale development, attitude measurement, psychometrics, questionnaire design
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
