مدى اختلاف الخصائص السيكومترية لأداة القياس في ضوء تغاير عدد بدائل الاستجابة والمرحلة الدراسية

2003 1423
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

...
...

...
...

.....

1

2

451
172
143 136
14

ZV M
2

1
0.050.01
2
3
STUDY SUMMARY
The objective of the current study is to recognize the extent of effect of the multi
alternatives response of measurement tools and school stages difference on reliability
and validity coefficients. Also it tried to acknowledge the extent of difference of styles or
types of the individuals response in the light of change of the number of measurement
alternatives and school stages.
For data collection we used scale tension list measurement for Charles Splirger & others
prepared and translated to Arabic by Dr. Nabeel Al-Zahar and Dr. Danis Hosfer. Three
additional forms are made of this measurement differs only in the number of response
alternatives. Hence we now have four forms of the measurement (two alternatives form,
three alternatives form, four alternatives and the five alternatives). The tension feature
measurement for Charles Spliger & others, prepared & translated to Arabic by Dr. AlBehairi as external examiner for measurement of concurrence validity.
All these measurements were applied on a sample consist of 451 students from different
stages of general education at Jeddah city. They are used in a multi-stage punch style
as follows: 172 from class (6) of elementary school, 136 student from 3rd class of
intermediate school and 143 students from 3rd class of secondary school, scientific
section. We took in consideration while presenting the measurement to the students the
following ranking: two alternatives measurement, three alternatives measurement, five
alternative measurement and at last the four alternatives (original) measurement.
The time interval between each application is 14 days simultaneously at each of the
application school.
For reply of the study inquiries a group of statistical analysis are made (Z. V. and M) to
know the difference between each of the reliability & validity coefficients as used by the
statistician Ka in order to recognize the difference occur at response style of each
individual according to difference of alternatives numbers and age stage.
From the discussion of the study result we can conclude the following:
1) The measurement tools of the psychometrical characteristics are in general affected
by the change of the number of response alternatives, and hence it is not
independent of it. If the number of response alternatives increase the values of
reliability and validity coefficients increases, and with statistical function difference at
level of 0.01 and 0.05.
2) The difference in school stage affects the validity co-efficient of measurement tools
more than affection on reliability co-efficient. As it is noticed that the validity coefficient of the measurement tool increases with the increase in the mental and
knowledge growth of the students.
3) The five alternatives measurement showed high reliability degree compared to other
measurements. On the other hand the four alternatives measurement has higher
validity co-efficient value than other measurements.
4) The values of the reliability & validity coefficients increases when the alternative
tools are many, particularly when the respondents are of high caliber and have high
incentive for participation supported with clear perception to the measured featured
and the importance of its measurement.
5) The response style of individuals differs according to number of alternatives and
difference of school stage as it becomes of more spread and diversified as the
mental and knowledge growth increases at the individual. Because availability of
multi-alternatives grants the respondent more allowance to express himself with
more precision reflecting what actually in his mind without falsification or tendency to
one style of response.
In the light of results reached by this study and the outcome of the previous studies
results. A number of recommendations are suggested which concentrates on the
importance of the number of measurement tools and that they should be scientifically
specified instead of being randomly selected. I.e. the measurement shall include 5
alternatives for higher knowledge stages and less for lower knowledge stages. Also we
ensure on sensitivity of the tool and its distinguishing capability, taking care of its validity
when applied on samples of high difference of ages and knowledge level even if it
showed high reliability.
4
7 ...............................................................
9 ....................................................
9 ......................................................................
11
11
12
14
...............................................................................
..............................................................................
.....................................................
...............................................................................
14.....................................
14
31
53
55
...............................................................
................................................................
.........................................................................
.......................................................................
71.....................................................
71
73
73
73
74
76
77
....................................................................
................................................................................
..............................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
........................................................................
..........................................................................
5

79..............................................
79
...........................................................
97
..................................................................
104 .........................................
104 .........................................................................
106 ......................................................................
108 ............................................................
114 ............................................................
6
Scaling
ScalesTechniques
Thurstone Scales
Guttman Likert Scales
7
Semantic Osgood et al. Scales

Differential

8
9

1

2
.3

1

2

.3
10

1

2

3

: .1
Reliability
2000
1996
Validity
(1960)Cronbach

APA , AERA (1985)1997

11
response style
1993
: 2
: 3

3 2
5 4
12

1987

1
2

3

4

1997
Reliability

2000

13

1996

2000

S t = ST + S e
St2
2
14
1=
ST
St
Se
St
ST
Se
=
1
2
2
St
St
ST
R
=
2
tt
St
S
Rtt = 1 e2
St
2000

15
S 2
ST 2
=1 e

2
St 2
St
Se 2
R = 1 2
tt
St
Se = St (1 Rtt )
2
S e = S t 1 Rtt

0.90
15
Se = 15 1 0.90 = 4.5

2000
100

68%
100 4.5
95.5 x 104.5
95%
100 9
91 x 109
99%
100 13.5
86.5 x 113.5
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1996

1
2

.3

1997
17
2120
2000
18
Se = Se ( Adm) + Se ( g ) + Se (subj) + ST ( Fl )
2
Se
S e ( Adm )
S e ( g )
2
S e ( subj )
ST
( FL )
Se = ST (equ) + Se ( Adm) + Se ( g ) + Se (subj) + ST ( f L )

2
19
2
ST (equ )
20

&
Sperarman Brown Formula &

R =
nn
n rss
1 + ( n 1) rss

n Rnn
rss

2n
Rtt =
nr1 1
22
1 + r1 1
22

Rtt
n
r
21
11
22
Rulon Formula

Sd 2
Rtt = 1 2
St

Sd2

d2 d

Sd =
n n
d2
St2
Gutman Formula
&

( S a 2 + Sb 2 )
Rtt = 2 1
S
t

Sa2
Sb2
St2
22
Kuder Richardson Formula 20 20

R =
20
k
1
k 1
pq
2
St

K
pq
St 2
2000
Kuder Richardson Formula 21 21
20
0.50
20q p
R21 =
X (K X )
1
K 1
KS 2
X
23
Cronbach ()
Cronbach
2
K Si
=
1
2

K 1
St
Si 2
St 2

1997
Si220 p.q

2000

24
Se
Rtt = 1 2
St
Se2 St2

S 2 = n 2 S T2
Tn
2 = nS 2
S en
e
2000

1978n
R =
nn
n rss
1 + (n 1) rss
0.5020
0.80
n 0 . 50
1 + ( n 1 )( 0 . 50 )
0 . 50 n
0 . 80 =
0 . 50 n + 0 . 50
0 . 40 n + 0 . 40 = 0 . 50 n
0 . 10 n = 0 . 40
n = 4
0 . 80 =

80420
25

000
3

St2 S i = p q
2
q P
2000

1
0.75
0.5
S2i
0.25
0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.75
S2i
0.1875
0.25
0.1875
q
Si2

26

2000
Validity
(1960) Cronbach

APA , AERA (1985)1997

(AERA)(APA)

2000
1

2
3

27

2000
2000

2000

1997

28
2000
29

2000
2

30
2000
5
197820001997 1997

2000 1955
1
2
3
31

2000

2000

1997
32

Educational
The American Psychological Association (APA) Testing Service (ETS)
Consulting Psychologists Press Psychological Corporation

Flanagan
1980Chase
1
scale 2
3
4
5
6

33
Thurstone Technique
1929Thurstone
1931
Medians
Thurstone
19972000
1
2
119

3
Item Scale Value

4
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
11
10
34
.7

Normalized Z Scores
8 11 9
20004

Agre
1965 & Dawes

2000
(1982) Muller

35
2000

Gutman Scale Cumulative Technique

Gutman

Cumulative Technique
1 2
19974

1

2
3

4
Coefficient of Reproducibility
Coefficient of Scability

100
36
10 90
60
1997

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2000
12

37
Semantic Differential Technique

1952 Osgood

1992

1

2

3
97

4

9 1 7 1 5
19971992
2000
38

2000

0.82 0.74
2000 0.910.83
Sociometric Techniques

Sociometric Questionnaires
Interviews

Moreno et al.
39

Sociometric Matrices
1
0

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Moreno
1997
1
2
3
4
5
6

40
1

2

3
n
n 1
n(n 1)
2G
n+t
G
n
t
d m
l
n
m(d + l )
nh
41
1997

2000

Likert TechniqueSummated Ratings
1932
5 1
42
( Green&Rao,1970 ; Lehmann&Hulbert,1972)
2
11

(Miller,1956 ; Symonds,1924 ; Munshi,1990)
3644
53
536180344132
0.940.88
(Likert & Murphy,1938 ; Bendin,1954 ; Komorita,1963 ;
Komorita&Graham,1965)

1
2

3

(Nunnally,1978)
43
5 4
1
5
Item Analysis 6

Cronbach () 7

200019921997
Item Analysis
Cronbach ()
44

20001997

2000

10
45
200.80
0.90

(Anderson,1981)

1993
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8

1

2
3
4
5
6
1993
2000

46

2000 1992 Babbie Edwards
1
2
3
20 4

5

6

7

.8

47
12 11 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
19891990
15 14 13
1990
1
2
3
4
5
6

7

48
18 17 16
1990
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1989

49

1

2

1996

1997

50
1969 Ebel 1957Wiliams & Ebel

Owen 1985 Budescu&Nevo 1980 Straton & Catts 1972 1970Costin
Crehan & 19941991 Trevisan &Michaels & Sax 1987 & Froman
Eric 1993Hancock & Sax & Michael 19941993 Haladyna & Brewer
1997Lord1995 Bruno&Dirkzwager 1993Landrum
1969 Ebel
180 270 0.9

126135150
1985 Budescu&Nevo

1995Bruno&Dirkzwager
1997 Lord

1
2

3

4

5
51

1974 Martin & Mathis
1987 Velicer&Stevenson 1983 King, et.all 1982Comery & Montag

1994

1984Jane1979 FRISBIE &BRANDENBURG

Newstead& 1987Wyatt & Meyers 1984Dixon & Bobo& Stevick
Chang, 1981Boot1978 Mckelvie1974Huck&Jacko 1989Arnold
1997 1992 2000Jackson Barnette1997 Lei

1

2

3

4
5

6

52

Ochieng 2000 Weng&Cheng 1985 Benson&Hocovar
1995 2001
1

2

3

1991Garland

2001 Ochieng & Zumbo

1924 Symonds

1978Velicer & Stevenson
53
7

1980 Cox
1981 Goldberg

1989 Saal
7
9

71990 Munshi

8 210
76

1615

2000Preston&Colman 7
14911 2

7
7
1939 Champney&Marshall
7 1924

7 5
54
7 5 9

1975Lissitz&Green
roo
3210
149 75
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.77 0.77
0.82 0.82
0.85 0.84
0.85 0.85
0.86 0.85
0.86 0.86
0.71 0.65
0.77 0.71
0.80 0.74
0.81 0.75
0.81 0.75
0.81 0.76
0.57 0.42
0.63 0.47
0.67 0.52
0.69 0.52
0.69 0.53
0.70 0.53
14 9 7 5 3 2 14 9 7 5 3 2 14 9 7 5 3 2

1977Jenkins&Taber
5

1978 Mckelvie
16.5117 5
1175
Z

65

55

1941 Remmers&Ewart
Guilford
1953

1974Huck&Jacko
Haber&Albert

1981 Boote

1981 Neumann&Neumann

10 2

1985Cicchetti, et.al
65432
6 2 100
1006
1991 Russell&Bobko
0.92
0.67
1992 Alliger&Williams

1993 Chang lei

56
1994Chang Lei
165

1998Kim Kyung Hoon
975 3
189 134134111
975
9 5

2001Scherpenzeel
11
111995

1999

2 Piers&Harris
141210543
57
1309

121014
10

1412

2361954 Bendig
975 3 2 20

9
0.60
7
0.70
5
0.58
3
0.63
2
0.61

1963 Komorita
14
286
0.93 0.91
3
0.83 0.71
14

58

1965 Komorita&Graham
24SD
CPI
260

CPI
SD
56
67
70
67
0.74
0.62
0.916
0.92
SD
CPI

Matell & jacoby1971
18
20360 19

59

1974Masters
4207 6543 2
2
64 43 3
7654

7
6
5
4
3
0.63
0.74
0.63
0.70
0.52
0.75
0.81
0.73
0.79
0.56
0.83
0.87
0.81
0.84
0.72
0.86
0.89
0.84
0.87
0.75
0.89
0.91
0.86
0.89
0.79
0.89
0.92
0.88
0.90
0.81
1974

7
6
5
4
3
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.54
0.62
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.66
0.80
0.76
0.75
0.77
0.74
0.73
0.78
0.77
0.80
0.77
0.77
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.80
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.83
1974

2
0.35
0.43
0.57
0.63
0.67
0.70

2
0.57
0.65
0.74
0.75
0.80
0.83
60
6
9
13
16
19
22
5
7
10
12
15
17
1969

1979Remington,et.al
54 32
1978Nunnally 5

1991Brown & widing & Coulter
1995
1150765 43
0.910.900.920.900.87
5 432
3
1999
1995
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3

31
63
65
1
41
52
19
143
43
30

136
34
25
48
172
2
3
451

1

20

20
80
4
1986

66

0.92

12.77

40.87
0.93
13.63
45.72

0.81
0.62

42
42

0.55
0.37
0.46

177
0.58
0.35
0.41
196

1986
State - Trail Anxiety Inventory (STAI) 2
Charles, d. Spielberger & Richard, L. Gorsuch & robaert, E. Lushene

Trait State

20

20 12 6
80
4
67
1984

&
0.83
0.71
0.79
0.80
0.69
0.86
0.57
0.50
0.50
0.54
2
14

68
3
570 4
5

SPSS

1976Hakstain & WhalenM

69
4
1 3
1
(
)
4
k

Bk

M = J 1 Bk k =41
18 J k =1
2 3
Bk (1 k )
k =1
2
(
9nk 1)
Bk =
(nk 1)
Bk

J knkK
kk

4671981HaysV
V = (n j 3)(Z j u )
4
j =1
(n
3)Z j
u =
j =1
(n
4
j =1
3)
Zjnjj

Z
Z =
z1 z 2
1
1
+
n1 3 n2 3

n1 , n2 z1 , z2
70
2ZV M

1
1

0.86 0.87
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.84
0.93 0.90
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.89 0.92
0.84
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.90 0.91
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.91
143N
136N
172N
1
0.840.920.84
0.93
1
71
-3

0.55
0.33
0.35
0.58
0.54
0.20
0.72
0.78
0.40
0.60
0.54
0.25
143N
136N
172N
0.010.05

2

600.720.580.55
5 432
72
Hakstain&Whalen M
1 1976
3
2 M

0.87
0.86
0.84
0.90
0.92
0.89
0.92
0.87
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.91
8.34
14.28
13.51
7.82
11.34
11.34
0.010.05
3

0.01 13.51M
0.01
14.28M
0.058.34M

Z
4
73
4
Z

1.163
2.414
1.848
32
2.141
0.04
1.424
42
1.631
1.916
2.822
52
0.979
2.088
43
0.469
0.497
0.423
0.974
0.510
143
1.590
1.397
54
172
136
2.581.96
53
0.010.05

4
0.01
2.822 (Z)
0.05
2.088 2.414 (Z)
2.141 (Z) 0.05

74
(V)
4671981Hays
1 2Z

5
2V

0.86
0.85
0.88
0.93
0.93
0.89
0.89
0.84
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.90
9.614
17.92
1.063
7.82
11.34
7.82
0.010.05

0.055
V
V
9.6140.01 17.92
0.05

Z
6

75
3.054
3.278
0.423
32
1.079
0.285
42
1.497
2.218
0.882
52
1.975
3.564
43
1.556
1.060
0.423
0.05
0.418
2.504
0.882
54
172
143
136
2.581.96
53
0.010.05
6

0.01
3.5643.278 (Z)

0.05
2.504 2.218 (Z)
3.054 (Z)0.01
1.975(Z) 0.05
76

(V)

7
2V

0.55
0.33
0.35
0.58
0.54
0.20
0.72
0.78
0.40
0.60
0.54
0.25
6.98
33.85
5.15
7.82
11.34
7.82
0.010.05
7
0.05
6.985.15V
V 0.05
0.01 33.85

Z
8

77
0.368
2.128
1.489
32
2.426
5.725
0.542
42
0.628
2.128
1.011
52
2.058
3.596
2.032
43
0.259
0.478
53
1.799
3.596
1.554
54
143
136
172
2.581.96
0.010.05
8
V
Z
0.05
2.032 Z
V
0.052
Z 0.01
3.5963.596 5.725
0.05
2.128 2.128 Z
V
78
V Z
0.052.058 2.426 Z

9
2 M

0.91
0.88
0.89
0.84
0.91
0.87
0.92
0.86
0.91
0.92
0.90
0.87
9.54
3.80
1.64
5.99
9.21
5.99
5.99
0.010.05

9 M
9.54 M0.01
29.212

Z
V

79
10

0.371
1.96
1.441 0.621 &
1.864 0.438 0.980 &

2.114
0.966
0.330 &
0.010.05

V
11
2V

0.90
0.88
0.89
0.88
0.91
0.84
0.93
0.85
0.90
0.89
0.93
0.86
0.29
3.04
5.81
1.16
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
0.010.05
11 V

Z
12
80
12

0.483
1.337
2.036
1.035
0.403 2.065
0.726
1.660
0.306
1.96
0
0.462
0.010.05
12
ZV
0.05
2.065 2.036 Z
V

13
2V

0.25
0.40
0.20
0.35
0.54
0.78
0.54
0.33
0.60
0.72
0.58
0.55
16.80
32.94
19.60
6.64
9.21
9.21
9.21
5.99
0.010.05
13V
0.05
81
6.64 V

16.802.94 9.60V 0.01
Z
14
14

5
1.96

2.58
3.011 5.357 3.460

4.095 4.235 4.016

0.735
1.131
0.190
2.214
0.479 2.271
0.010.05
14
0.05
2.271 2.214 Z
0.01
4.016 3.460 Z
0.01
4.235 5.357 Z
0.01
4.095 3.011 Z
82

215

5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
72.6 61.6
87.4 53.3
31.3 16.6
74.2 29.4
129.3
105.1
22.1 28.2
27.9 29.9
29.1 12.8
40.5 9.8
48.8 25.6
26.4 17.0
150.5 88.9
120.1
116.5
27.4 28.6
34.2 12.7
45.4 29.3
117.3 63.7
23.1 9.6
47.1 19.6
36.5 2.7
6.7
0.9
10.2
73.5
44.0
0.2
10.5
9.9
5.3
41.6
6.3
83.6
64.7
1.4
31.3
41.6
23.6
15.4
3.6
20.4
3.08 41.57
55.29
28.52
12.97 96.9 57.8
1.57 25.77
22.82 5.71 1.44 47.4 41.2
9.57 7.16 6.41 5.57 8.50 77.4 34.1
60.48
62.75
24.64
42.10
38.12 29.8 7.1
43.64
32.02
45.18 8.88 14.24
173.5
146.7
3.08 8.12 18.41 0.10 16.94 58.6 55.6
8.57 4.81 6.06 4.96 1.88 62.8 15.8
0.18 16.13 6.35 6.72 0.27 48.4 17.2
3.08 7.31 6.06 3.06 2.38 38.6 16.8
37.27
23.93
12.94
25.34
10.62 32.8 2.2
2.02 19.37
18.41 9.90 3.56 29.5 7.0
77.10
150.1
91.59
61.34
34.00 74.6 63.1
45.88
101.6
83.12
23.93
28.27
117.5 97.8
0.85 14.66
21.59 3.37 1.44 47.9 12.1
21.15
24.52 5.41 16.07
15.56 39.2 9.1
50.52
32.09
19.35
15.10
28.27 17.7 6.5
33.29
26.28
25.82 4.43 3.56 192.3 122
16.79
31.87 2.53 8.22 5.77 17.5 17.3
4.37 12.82 2.18 7.52 0.03 58.3 10.5
4.37 13.71 5.12 4.07 0.47 32.4 28.6
4 3
2 1
3 2 1
92.3
5.6
17.9
7.9
75.8
12.4
31.4
11.5
10.6
15.9
1.7
41.9
67.1
4.3
15.9
10.1
57.0
6.5
5.5
26.5
53.6
28.5
11.3
0.09
67.8
11.3
12.3
1.5
5.9
0.09
3.9
16.9
35.4
2.8
0.6
1.1
43.0
10.3
2.8
4.6
4 3 2 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.05
83
2
2
2
2

2

2

216

5
0.33
0.36
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.20
0.29
0.22
0.28
0.32
0.24
0.27
0.10
0.28
0.29
54.6
68.3
50.9
40.9
31.1
19.6
40.5
23.9
36.8
52.7
28.4
34.0
4.9
38.6
42.0
0.32
0.22
0.32
0.22
0.16
0.23
0.22
0.07
0.12
0.22
0.17
0.12
0.9
0.13
0.13
49.9
23.4
52.2
23.2
11.6
24.9
23.6
2.4
6.3
22.8
12.9
6.2
3.8
7.9
7.6
0.22
0.14
0.16
0.26
0.21
0.13
0.26
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.12
22.2
9.5
12.1
33.9
21.2
7.5
32.7
9.5
7.5
15.4
7.6
11.3
9.1
8.5
6.1
84
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.29
0.15
0.08
0.22
0.03
0.16
0.21
0.14
0.20
0.06
0.11
0.21
15.5
28.0
27.8
41.1
9.9
3.2
22.7
0.3
11.3
19.9
9.1
18.5
1.6
5.1
19.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.32 52.8 0.23 24.3 0.16 12.5 0.23 25.7 16

0.24 41.6 0.17 14.1 0.17 13.3 0.16 12.3 17
0.20 19.4 0.12
6.7
0.08
2.7
0.06
1.5
18
0.29 43.9 0.14
8.6
0.08
3.1
0.08
2.8
19
0.26 31.4 0.18 15.3 0.24 28.2 0.14
9.4
20

216
0.05
6

85

0.01
0.05

1978Velicer & Stevenson1924 Symonds

Remmers&Ewart
Goldberg1981Boote 1974Huck&Jacko1954 Guilford 1941
1989Saal1985
Cicchettil1981Neumann&Neumann1981
Kim 1994 Chang Lei1992Alliger&Williams1991Russell&Bobko

2000 Preston&Colman19991998Kyung Hoon
86
0.91
1975Lissitz&Green 1939Champney&Marshall
Jenkins&Taber
5 1977
1978Mckelvie

87
1999

0.01
88
0.05

0.880.84
0.93
0.90
0.05
1993Chang lei

89
0.05

0.01
0.01
0.05

1978Mckelvie

2814

0.05
0.01
90
91
92
20

451
172
143136

14

SPSS
Hakstain & WhalenM
1976
93
4671981HaysV

Z
2
SPSS

6
0.05 0.01
7
10
11
94

1

2

3
95
1

2

3
4
5

6

96

1987
1985

1989
1984
1989 &
&

1992
1996
1997
2000
1998 10

1986& 11
1990 12
1995 13
1997 14

1993 15
1997 16
97
1995 17
2000 18
1996 19
1993 20
2000 21
1974 22
1988 23
1980 24

1999 25
1997 26

256 199

1992 27
53 4128

1994 28
1996 29

117 91
98
30. Alliger, G. M. &Williams, K. J. (1992). Relating the internal

consistency of scales to rater response tendencies. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52: 337-343.
31. Anderson, L. w. (1981). Assessin affective characteristics in the
schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
32. Bendig, A. W. (1954). Reliability and the number of rating scale
categories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38 , 1:38-40.
33. Benson, J. & Hocovar, D. (1985). The impact of item phrasing on the
Validity of attitude scales for elementary school children. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 22 , 3: 231-240.
34. Boote, A. S. (1981). Reliability testing of psychographics scales: Fivepoint or seven-point? Anchored or Labeled? Journal of Advertising
Research, 21: 53-60.
35. Brown, G. & Widing, R. E. & Coulter, R. L. (1991). Customer
valuation of retail salespeople utilizing the SOCO scale. Journal of the
Academe of Marketing Science, 9: 347-351.
36. Bruno, J. E. & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determinig the optimal number
of alternatves to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic
perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 959-966.
37. Budescu, D. V. & Nevo, B. (1985). Optimal number of options: An
investigation of the assumption of proportionality. Journal of
38. Champney, H. & Marshall, H. (1939). Optimal refinement of the rating
scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23: 323-331.
39. Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-Order Effects in Likert-Type Scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51: 531-540.
40. Chang, L. (1993). Using confirmatory factor analysis of multitraitmultimethod data to assess the psychometrical equivalence of 4-point
and 6-point likert type scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the national council on measurement in education, Atlanta, GA, April
13-15.
99
41. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point

likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 18, 3: 205-215.
42. Chang, L. (1997). Dependability of anchoring labels of Likert-type
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 800-807.
43. Chow, P. & Winzer, M. M. (1992). Reliability and validity of scale
measuring attitudes toward mainstreaming. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52: 223-228.
44. Cicchetti, D.V & Showalter, D. & Tyer, P.J. (1985). The effect of
number rating scale categories on levels of binterrater reliability:
Amonte carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9,
1:31-36.
45. Costin, F. (1970). The optimal number of alternatives in multiple choice
achievement tests. Some empirical evidence for a mathematical proof.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 353-358.
46. Costin, F. (1972). Three choice versus four choice items: Implications
for validity and reliability of objective achievement tests. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 32, 1035-1038.
47. Comrey, A. L. & Montag, I. (1982). Comparison of factor analytic
results with tow-choice and seven-choice personality item formats.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 3:285-289.
48. Cox, E. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale.
A review Journal of marketing Research, 17: 407-422.
49. Crehan, K. & Haladyna, T. & Brewer, B. (1991). The validity of two
item-writing rules. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 183-192.
50. Crehan, K. & Haladyna, T. & Brewer, B. (1993). Use of an inclusive
option and the optimal number of options for multiple choice items.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 241-247.
51. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing. New York:
Harper & Row, publishers, Incorporated.
100
52. Dixon, P. N. & Bobo, M. & Stevick< R. A. (1984). Response

differences and preferences for all-category- defined and end- defined
likert formats. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 61-66.
53. Ebel, R. L. (1969). Expected reliabilities as a function of choices per
item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29 , 5: 565-570.
54. Eric Landrum, R. (1993). More evidence in favor of three-option
multiple-choice tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,
771-778.
55. Frisbie, D. A. & Brandenburg, D. C. (1979). Equivalence of
Questionnaire Items With Varying Response Formats. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 16: 43-48
56. Garland, Ron. (1991). The Mid-Point on aRating Scale: Is it Desirable?.
Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
57. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from
uncertain, neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of
descriptions of oneself and various types of others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41:517-552.
58. Green, P. E., V. R. Rao, 1970. Rating scales and information
recoveryHow many scales and response categories to use.
J.Marketing 34 (3) 3339
59. Guilford, J. P. (1953). The correlation of an item with a composite of
the remaining items in a test. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 13: 87-93.
60. Hakstian, A. R. & Whalen, T. E. (1976). A K-sample significance test
for independent alpha coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 219-231.
61. Hancock, G. R. & Sax, G. & Thiede, K. W. & Michael, W. (1993).
Reliability of comparably written two-option multiple-choice and truefalse test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement,53, 651655.
62. Hays, W. (1981). Statistics. 3 rd.ed New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
101
63. Huck, S. W. & Jaccko, E. J. (1974). Effect of varying response format

of the Alpert-Haber achievement anxiety test. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 21: 159-163.
64. Jackson Barnette, J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert Response Option
reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, There is
better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 60 (3), 361-370.
65. Jane, S. S. (1984). Effects of certain scale parameters associated with
rating instrument used to evaluate college teaching. Dissertation
Abstract International, 45 , 2: 501-A.
66. Jenkins, G. D. & Taber, T. D. (1977). Amonte carlo study of factors
affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied
67. Kim, Kyung Hoon. (1998). An Analysis of Optimum Number of
Response. Journal of KAMS, 01: www.kams.org/journal/m1 -05.htm.
68. King, L. A. & King, D. W. & Klockars, A. J. (1983). Dichotomous and
multipoint scales using bipolar adjectives. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 7 , 2: 173-180.
69. Komorita, S. S. & Graham, W. K. (1965). Number of scale points and
the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
4: 987-995.
70. Komorita, S. S. (1963). Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point
on a likert scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 61: 327-334.
71. Lehmann, D.R. and J.M. Hulbert, (1972), "Are Three-Point Scales
Always Good Enough?" Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 4
(November), 444-446
72. Lesourd, S. J. et al. (1990). Validation of a visionary leadership attitude
instrument using factor analysis. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association
(Chicago, IL, October 16-20, 1990). Eric_ no: ED334701.
73. Likert, R. (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives of Psychology, 140 (June).
102
74. Likert, R. & Roslow, S. & Murphy, G. (1934). A simplified and reliable
method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scale. Journal of Social
Psychology, 5, 228-238.
75. Lissitz, R. W. & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale
points on reliability. Amonte carlo approach. Journal of Applied
76. Lord, F. M. (1977). Optimal number of choices per item a comparision
of four approaches. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 33-38.
77. Martin, W. S. & Mathis, W. J. (1974).An investigation of the effect of
the number of scale intervals on principal components factor analysis.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34: 537-545.
78. Masters, J. R. (1969). The optimal number of categories of a summated
rating scale as a function of content and average discrimination index
of the questionnaire. Masters thesis. University of Pittsburgh.
79. Masters, J. R. (1974). The relationship between number of response
categories and reliability of likert-type questionnaires. Journal of
80. Matell, M. S. & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of
alternatives for likert scales items? Study I: reliability and validity.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31:657-674.
81. Matell, M. S. & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of
alternatives for likert scales items? Effects of testing time and scale
properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (6), 506-509.
82. Mccaslin, N. L. & Torres, R. M. (1992). Latent Factors Underlying
Vocational Teachers' Attitudes toward Using Microcomputers for
Supplementing In-Service Education. Paper presented at the Meeting of
the American Vocational Association (St. Louis, MO, December 6,
1992), ERIC_NO: ED352482.
83. Mckelvie, S. J. (1978). Graphic rating scales- How many categories.
British Journal of Psychology, 69: 185-202.
103
84. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven. Plus or minus tow:
Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological
Review, 63, 81-97.
85. Munshi, Jamal. (1990). A Method for Constructing Likert Scales.
http://www.jamalx.com/papers/likert.html
86. Muller, D. (1982). Measurement of attitudes Interests and personality
traits Bloomington. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
87. Newstead,S. E. & Arnold, J. (1989). The effect of response format on
ratings of teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,
33-43.
88. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: MCgrawHillbook.
89. Ochieng, C. O. (2001). Effects of item order on consistency and
precision under different ordering schemes in attitudinal scales: A Case
of physical self-concept scales. (paper No. ESQESS-2001-3).
Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia. Edgeworth
Laboratory for Quantitative Educational and Social Science.
90. Ochieng, C. O. & Zumbo, B. D. (2001). Implications of ordinal scale
categorization on regression models under different distributions and
conditions: an assessment of the accuracy and information of Likert
scales on regression analysis. University of British Columbia. Presented
at the NCME Conference, Seattle, WA, April 12,2001.
www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/zumbo/ins2001/index.html.
91. Owen, S. V. & Froman, R. D. (1987). Whats wrong with three- option
multiple choice items?. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
47: 513-522.
92. 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.
93. Remington, M. & Tyrer, P. J. & Newson-smith, J & Cicchetti, D. V.
(1979).Comparative reliability of categorical and analogue rating scales
in the assessment of psychiatric symptomatology. Psychological
medicine, 9: 765-770.
104
94. Remmers, H. H. & Ewart, E. (1941). Reliability of multiple-choice

measuring instruments as a function of the spearman brown prophecy
formula. Journal of Educational Psychology,32: 61-66.
95. Russell, C. J. & Pinto, J. K. & Bobko, P. (1991). Appropriate moderated
regression and inappropriate research strategy: A demonstration of
information loss due to scale coarseness. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 15 , 3: 257-266.
96. Scherpenzeel, A. (2001). Why use 11-point scales? www.plg.at
/eureporting/ sourcebook.pdf
97. Straton, R. G. & Catts, R. M. (1980). A comparison of tow three and
four choice item test given affixed total number of choices. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 40: 357-365.
98. Symonds, P. M. (1924). On the loss of reliability in ratings due to
coarseness of the scale. Journal of Experimental, 7, 456-461.
99. Trevisan, M. s. & Sax, G. & Michael, W. B. (1991). The effects of the
number of options per item and student ability on test validity and
reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 829-837.
100. Trevisan, M. s. & Sax, G. & Michael, W. B. (1994). Estimating the
optimim number of options oer item using an incremental option
paradigm. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 86-91.
101. Velicer, W. F. & Stevenson, J. F. (1987). The relation between item
format and the structure of the eysenck personality inventory. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 2 , 2: 293-304.
102. Weng, L. J. & Cheng, C. P. (2000). Effect of response order on Likerttype scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 908924.
103. Williams, B. J. & Ebel, R. L. (1957). The effect of varying the number
of alternatives per item and multiple-choice vocabulary test items. In
Owen, S. V. and Froman, R. D. (1987). What's wrong with three
option multiple-choice items?. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 47, 513-522.
104. Wyatt, R. C. & Meyers, L. S. (1987). Psychometric properties of four5 point likert-type response scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 47: 27-35.
105

106
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
17
107
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

108
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

109
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

110
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

111
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

112
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

113
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

114
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
115
18

مدى اختلاف الخصائص السيكومترية لأداة القياس في ضوء تغاير عدد بدائل الاستجابة والمرحلة الدراسية

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

مدى اختلاف الخصائص السيكومترية لأداة القياس في ضوء تغاير عدد بدائل الاستجابة والمرحلة الدراسية

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2003 1423

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Semantic Osgood et al. Scales

Se = ST (equ) + Se ( Adm) + Se ( g ) + Se (subj) + ST ( f L )

Sperarman Brown Formula &

Kuder Richardson Formula 20 20

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Gutman Scale Cumulative Technique

Semantic Differential Technique

Likert TechniqueSummated Ratings

(Miller,1956 ; Symonds,1924 ; Munshi,1990)

1969 Ebel 1957Wiliams & Ebel

180 270 0.9

1984Jane1979 FRISBIE &BRANDENBURG

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

2.088 2.414 (Z)

2.141 (Z) 0.05

1.441 0.621 &

1.864 0.438 0.980 &

3.011 5.357 3.460

4.095 4.235 4.016

0.32 52.8 0.23 24.3 0.16 12.5 0.23 25.7 16

0.29 43.9 0.14

0.26 31.4 0.18 15.3 0.24 28.2 0.14

1978Velicer & Stevenson1924 Symonds

Kim 1994 Chang Lei1992Alliger&Williams1991Russell&Bobko

30. Alliger, G. M. &Williams, K. J. (1992). Relating the internal

41. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point

52. Dixon, P. N. & Bobo, M. & Stevick< R. A. (1984). Response

63. Huck, S. W. & Jaccko, E. J. (1974). Effect of varying response format

94. Remmers, H. H. & Ewart, E. (1941). Reliability of multiple-choice

You might also like