Total views : 141

Number of Scale Points and Data Characteristics: An Experimental Investigation


  • IIM Kozhikode, Kozhikode - 673570, Kerala,, India


Objectives: This study compares the scale characteristics when the same instrument is used with five and four point scales to test the assumption whether results vary with number of scale points. Methods/Statistical Analysis: An experimental study was designed where the same items were organized into two different forms one with five point response format and the second with four points format. 195 respondents were randomly assigned to either one of the formats. Comparison was made between the groups on the scale characteristics and correlations obtained. Findings: When the data is transformed to a common scale, it is seen, that data characteristics like mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are comparable indicating that there is no change in scale characteristics. However when the correlations are estimated, it is seen that five point scales report a significantly higher correlation. Application/Improvements: The major implication is that five point scales tend to inflate the reported correlations with a distinct chance of higher type1 error especially when the variables may not be associated.


Correlation, Five Point Scale, Likert Scale, Measurement, Scale Points, Type 1 Error.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 98)


  • Ko SH. Effect of consumer value on the brand identification and loyalty in airline service. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Jul 21; 9(26):1–6.
  • Yeo HJ. Information system success disparity between developer and users. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 May 30; 9(20):1–6.
  • Deepa S. Computer-related health problems among whitecollar employees: Communicating a blueprint. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Aug 30; 9(32):1– 10.
  • Lee CS, Park SU, Hwang YK. The structural relationship between mother’s parenting stress and child’s well-being: the mediating effects of mother’s growth mindset and hope.Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Sep 29; 9(36):1–6.
  • Cabooter E, Weijters B, Geuens M, Vermeir I. Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use. Journal of Business Research. 2016 Jul 31; 69(7):2574–84.
  • Jones WP, Loe SA. Optimal number of questionnaire response categories. Sage Open. 2013 Apr 1; 3(2).
  • Weng LJ. Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004 Dec 1; 64(6):956–72.
  • Contractor SH, Fox RJ. An investigation of the relationship between the number of response categories and scale sensitivity.Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 2011 Mar 1; 19(1):23–35.
  • Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica.2000 Mar 31; 104(1):1–15.
  • Martin WS. The effects of scaling on the correlation coefficient: A test of validity. Journal of Marketing Research.1973 Aug 1; 10(3):316–8.
  • Maydeu-Olivares A, Kramp U, García-Forero C, GallardoPujol D, Coffman D. The effect of varying the number of response alternatives in rating scales: Experimental evidence from intra-individual effects. Behavior Research Methods. 2009 May 1; 41(2):295–308.
  • Churchill Jr GA, Peter JP. Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research. 1984 Nov 1; 360–75.
  • Rodgers WL, Andrews FM, Regula Herzog A. Quality of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Official Statistics. 1992 Sep 1; 8:251–75.
  • Leitz P. Research into questionnaire design: A summary of the literature. International Journal of Market Research.2010; 52(2):249–72.
  • Lee J, Paek I. In search of the optimal number of response categories in a rating scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2014 Oct 1; 32(7):663–73.
  • Jacoby J, Matell MS. Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research. 1971 Nov 1; 8(4):495–500.
  • McKelvie SJ. Graphic rating scales-How many categories?British Journal of Psychology. 1978 May 1; 69(2):185–202.
  • Revilla MA, Saris WE, Krosnick JA. Choosing the number of categories in agree-disagree scales. Sociological Methods and Research. 2013 Dec 10; 43(1):73–97.
  • Dawes JG. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research. 2008 Feb 29; 51(1).
  • Eutsler J, Lang B. Rating scales in accounting research: The impact of scale points and labels. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 2015 Jul; 27(2):35–51.
  • Scheier MF, Carver CS. The self‐consciousness scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1985 Dec 1; 15(8):687–99.
  • Fenigstein A, Scheier MF, Buss AH. Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1975 Aug; 43(4):522– 37.
  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009 Nov 1; 41(4):1149–60.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.