Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Middle Response Functioning in Likert-responses to Personality Items

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies examined whether the middle response option in graphic rating scales indicates a moderate standing on a trait/item, or rather a “dumping ground” for unsure or non-applicable (N/A) responses. Study One identified middle response-option dysfunction. Study Two indicated that respondents use the middle response option as an N/A proxy, even under implicit ‘skip if you do not know’ instructional sets. Although middle response category ‘misuse’ did not adversely affect reliability and validity in these studies, it is recommended that assessment developers (especially in on-line administration contexts) regularly include an N/A response option when administering graphic rating scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is in fact the case looking at the correlations of middle category endorsement (across 300 items) with Big 5 scale scores for Study One’s 21,588 participants (r neur = .11, r con = −.20, r agree = −.11, r open = −.24, r ext = −.14, all p’s < .0001).

References

  • Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. (2004). Understanding resistance to the data-model relationship in Rasch’s paradigm: A reflection for the next generation. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch Measurement (pp. 167–200). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-RTM) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBois, B., & Burns, J. A. (1975). An analysis of the meaning of the question mark response category in attitude scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 35, 869–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanisch, K. A. (1992). The job descriptive index revisited: Questions about the question mark. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 377–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofacker, C. F. (1984). Categorical judgment scaling with ordinal assumptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 103–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 5–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, L. S., & Krug, S. E. (1984). Psychometric function of the “neutral” response option in clinical personality scales. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 7, 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales; reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C., & Schriesheim, J. (1974). Development and empirical verification of new response categories to increase the validity of multiple response alternative questionnaires. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 34, 877–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Skokie, IL: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. H. (2004). Substantive scale construction. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 201–225). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, St. Cloud State University, Whitney 303, St. Cloud, MN, 56301, USA

    John T. Kulas

  2. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Alicia A. Stachowski

  3. Meyecon, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Brad A. Haynes

Authors
  1. John T. Kulas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alicia A. Stachowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brad A. Haynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John T. Kulas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kulas, J.T., Stachowski, A.A. & Haynes, B.A. Middle Response Functioning in Likert-responses to Personality Items. J Bus Psychol 22, 251–259 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9064-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9064-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation