<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_analogue_scale" rel="nofollow noreferrer">visual analogue scale</a> (VAS) has been used in some research. For a direct comparison in one study, see <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10645112" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vickers</a> who compared VAS vs. 7-point Likert.</p>

<p>It's interesting that Vicker found a similar effect to that found in a highly cited paper by <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dawes</a> on 5/7-point Likert vs 10-point Likert, namely that more points on the scale result in a lower average score... despite the fact that the stuff measured in these two studies was completely different: muscle soreness and respectively customer satisfaction. Well, the probability of this coincidence is 50%, but I couldn't find any meta-analysis of this type of study.</p>

<p>One additional issue with Likert (and other ordinal) scales is that some researchers use the wrong statistics on it, like those assuming normal distribution, c.f. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bishop and Herron</a>, who also discuss some finer points.</p>

<p>Refs (spelled out):</p>

<ul>
<li>AJ Vickers, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10645112" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness</a>,  Int J Technology Assess Health Care. 1999;15(04):709–716</li>
<li>J Dawes, "<a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales</a>", Int J Market Res. 2008;51(1)</li>
<li>PA Bishop and RL Herron, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Use and Misuse of the Likert Item Responses and Other Ordinal Measures</a>, Int J Exerc Sci. 2015; 8(3): 297–302.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T07:39:49.717Z
The papers you suggested in the comments are highly useful.
JetLag
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T14:34:06.253Z
I think that accept this response is negative, although the documents that quotes can help the user who asked. The 5-point scale is the most used for several reasons: it is from 5 response options when the variability works more powerfully, more response options introduce even more biases, it is obvious that many people are not used to handle a scale of 7 options. Nor is it commented on how psychometrics works to eliminate biases and questions raised in the development of the question.
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T07:09:12.620Z
2017-11-04T07:46:08.980Z
2017-11-04T07:46:08.980Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>Likert Scale has been widely in use for more than 80 years (it was published in <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-01885-001" rel="noreferrer">1932</a>). However, the limitations of it are well-known:</p>

<ul>
<li>The space between each choice is possibly not equidistant. </li>
<li>People keep endorsing the mid-point of the scale and avoid choosing the “extremes" options on the scale, even if an extreme choice would be the most accurate.</li>
<li>Attitudes of the population for one particular item in reality exist on a vast, multi-dimensional continuum. However, the Likert Scale is uni-dimensional and only gives 5-7 options of choice</li>
<li>Peoples’ answers will be influenced by previous questions</li>
</ul>

<p>What is the latest development in Psychometrics? Is there any budding and promising replacement or advancement for Likert Scale?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T06:35:19.443Z
The criticism you put forth here can be found in the Wikipedia article on the topic, however it is not obviously sourced over there (no inline citations). So [perhaps part of the question should be]: is this criticism actually based on empirical evidence? (Something that an answer here might choose to address as well.)
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T06:41:49.697Z
And I'm not sure how your  last bullet/point is relevant to the scale used, rather than to the overall structure [repetitiveness] of the questionnaire.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T06:46:35.543Z
It's not hard to agree least with the 1st and 3rd points you make; and others do as well https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/
got trolled too much this week
<measurement><personality>
Advancement to Likert Scale
JetLag
# Advancement to Likert Scale

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-11-04)

Likert Scale has been widely in use for more than 80 years (it was published in [1932](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-01885-001)). However, the limitations of it are well-known:

* The space between each choice is possibly not equidistant.
* People keep endorsing the mid-point of the scale and avoid choosing the “extremes" options on the scale, even if an extreme choice would be the most accurate.
* Attitudes of the population for one particular item in reality exist on a vast, multi-dimensional continuum. However, the Likert Scale is uni-dimensional and only gives 5-7 options of choice
* Peoples’ answers will be influenced by previous questions

What is the latest development in Psychometrics? Is there any budding and promising replacement or advancement for Likert Scale?

**Tags:** measurement, personality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The criticism you put forth here can be found in the Wikipedia article on the topic, however it is not obviously sourced over there (no inline citations). So [perhaps part of the question should be]: is this criticism actually based on empirical evidence? (Something that an answer here might choose to address as well.)  
> **username_1**: And I'm not sure how your  last bullet/point is relevant to the scale used, rather than to the overall structure [repetitiveness] of the questionnaire.  
> **username_1**: It's not hard to agree least with the 1st and 3rd points you make; and others do as well https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-11-04. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

The [visual analogue scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_analogue_scale) (VAS) has been used in some research. For a direct comparison in one study, see [Vickers](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10645112) who compared VAS vs. 7-point Likert.

It's interesting that Vicker found a similar effect to that found in a highly cited paper by [Dawes](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&rep=rep1&type=pdf) on 5/7-point Likert vs 10-point Likert, namely that more points on the scale result in a lower average score... despite the fact that the stuff measured in these two studies was completely different: muscle soreness and respectively customer satisfaction. Well, the probability of this coincidence is 50%, but I couldn't find any meta-analysis of this type of study.

One additional issue with Likert (and other ordinal) scales is that some researchers use the wrong statistics on it, like those assuming normal distribution, c.f. [Bishop and Herron](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/), who also discuss some finer points.

Refs (spelled out):

* AJ Vickers, [Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10645112), Int J Technology Assess Health Care. 1999;15(04):709–716
* J Dawes, "[Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9488&rep=rep1&type=pdf)", Int J Market Res. 2008;51(1)
* PA Bishop and RL Herron, [Use and Misuse of the Likert Item Responses and Other Ordinal Measures](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/), Int J Exerc Sci. 2015; 8(3): 297–302.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The papers you suggested in the comments are highly useful.  
> **username_2**: I think that accept this response is negative, although the documents that quotes can help the user who asked. The 5-point scale is the most used for several reasons: it is from 5 response options when the variability works more powerfully, more response options introduce even more biases, it is obvious that many people are not used to handle a scale of 7 options. Nor is it commented on how psychometrics works to eliminate biases and questions raised in the development of the question.  

---

