Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-26T17:48:13.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Use of Likert-Type Scales in Survey Research Examining Students’ Attitudes, Challenges, and Languages Use in an EMI University in Hong Kong

from Part I - Theoretical Chapters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2024

By
Christopher Shepard
Edited by
Samantha M. Curle  and
Jack Pun
Samantha M. Curle
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Jack Pun
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the design, development, and format of the Likert-type scales and response categories used in an online questionnaire for quantitative data collection for a recent empirical case study exploring attitudes, challenges, and perceptions of first-year undergraduate students at an English Medium Instruction (EMI) university in Hong Kong. Questionnaires are among the most widely used methods for research in the social sciences and can be an important and valuable source of data, which can be converted into measures of the numerous variables being examined. A variety of rating scale formats and designs with differing numbers of response categories and sequences are used in survey research. While researchers are typically confronted with a surplus of design and format choices, there is often little in terms of research, guidelines, or standards directing them toward which styles and formats to choose. Based on the survey design and development for this recent EMI-related study, and drawing from the literature, this chapter reviews how such choices and decisions were made, how the Likert-type scales were designed, and how these decisions may have influenced the overall success of the data collection and analysis. The case studies in Chapters 7, 8, and 11 of this book also adopt Likert-type scales in their questionnaire design, and these could be read together to supplement the understanding of the current chapter.

Keywords

English Medium Instruction (EMI)English for academic purposes (EAP)higher educationLikert scalesquestionnaire developmentsurvey design
Type
Chapter
Information
Researching English Medium Instruction
Quantitative Methods for Students and Researchers
 , pp. 40 - 54
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belson, W. A. (1966). The effects of reversing the presentation order of verbal rating scales. Journal of Advertising Research, 6 (December), 30–37.Google Scholar
Bishop, G. F., & Smith, A. (2001). Response-order effects and the early Gallup split-ballots. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, G. C., Hensel, P. J., & James, K. E. (2005). Marketing scales handbook. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
Busch, M. (1993). Using Likert scales in L2 research. A researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 733–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of four-point and six-point Likert-type scale in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, A. M., Chau, J. P., & Holroyd, E. (1999). Translation of questionnaires and issues of equivalence. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(2), 316–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, P. K. (2010). “Weep for Chinese university”: A case study of English hegemony and academic capitalism in higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of psychology test between Likert scale 5 and 6 points. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 399–403.Google Scholar
Chyung, S. Y., Kennedy, M., & Campbell, I. (2018). Evidence‐based survey design: The use of ascending or descending order of Likert‐type response options. Performance Improvement, 57(9), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Surveys, longitudinal, cross-sectional and trend studies. In Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (Eds.), Research methods in education (pp. 334–360). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire (Vol. 63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-Type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
Curle, S. M., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Trends in using questionnaires for EMI research: Suggestions for future improvements. In Research methods in English medium instruction (pp. 32–45). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. W. (2017). Likert scales. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online), 111(5), 488–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011a). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal, 65(4), 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011b). The student experience of English-medium higher education in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 25(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104–110.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. H., Herskovitz, P. J., & Pollack, S. (1994). The biasing effects of scale-checking styles on response to a Likert scale. In Proceedings of the American statistical association annual conference: Survey research methods (Vol. 792, pp. 792–795).Google Scholar
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing Bulletin, 2(1), 66–70.Google Scholar
Höhne, J. K., & Krebs, D. (2018). Scale direction effects in agree/disagree and item-specific questions: A comparison of question formats. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhne, J. K., & Lenzner, T. (2015). Investigating response order effects in web surveys using eye tracking. Psihologija, 48, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jan, S. L., & Shieh, G. (2014). Sample size determinations for Welch’s test in one‐way heteroscedastic ANOVA. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(1), 72–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Survey Question Bank: Methods Fact Sheet, 1(1), 11.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamaşak, R., Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2020). Academic language-related challenges at an English-medium university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, D., & Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. (2010). Positive first or negative first? Effects of the order of answering categories on response behavior. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6, 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. R. (1993). Multipoint scales: Mean and median differences and observed significance levels. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 5(4), 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W., Liu, N. F., & Yu, C. (1996). Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and proficiency in spoken English. RELC Journal, 27(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, H. (2015). Response option configuration of online administered Likert scales. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, N. (2008). Completion time and response order effects in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 914–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross‐cultural environment: Survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (2017). Survey methods in social investigation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, J. T., Weston, R., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Stuck in the middle: The use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Muircheartaigh, C. A., Krosnick, J. A., & Helic, A. (2001). Middle alternatives, acquiescence, and the quality of questionnaire data. Chicago, IL: Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Poon, A. Y. (2010). Language use, and language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(1), 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rammstedt, B., & Krebs, D. (2007). Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, C., & Morrison, B. (2021). Challenges of English-medium higher education: The first-year experience in Hong Kong revisited a decade later. In Language use in English-medium instruction at university (pp. 167–192). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, C., & Rose, H. (2023). English medium higher education in Hong Kong: Linguistic challenges of local and non-local students. Language and Education, 37(6), 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 7, pp. 497–516). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Thompson, G., Aizawa, I., Curle, S., & Rose, H. (2022). Exploring the role of self-efficacy beliefs and learner success in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(1), 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×