L.M. Lozano et al.

: Response Categories and the Reliability andHogrefe

Validity
©Methodology
2008 & of
2008; Rating
Huber
Vol. Scales
4(2):73–79
Publishers

Effect of the Number of Response

Categories on the Reliability and
Validity of Rating Scales
Luis M. Lozano1, Eduardo García-Cueto2, and José Muñiz2
1
University of Jaén, 2University of Oviedo, all Spain

Abstract. The Likert-type format is one of the most widely used in all types of scales in the field of social sciences. Nevertheless, there
is no definitive agreement on the number of response categories that optimizes the psychometric properties of the scales. The aim of the
present work is to determine in a systematic fashion the number of response alternatives that maximizes the fundamental psychometric
properties of a scale: reliability and validity. The study is carried out with data simulated using the Monte Carlo method. We simulate
responses to 30 items with correlations between them ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. We also manipulate sample size, analyzing four different
sizes: 50, 100, 200, and 500 cases. The number of response options employed ranges from two to nine. The results show that as the
number of response alternatives increases, both reliability and validity improve. The optimum number of alternatives is between four
and seven. With fewer than four alternatives the reliability and validity decrease, and from seven alternatives onwards psychometric
properties of the scale scarcely increase further. Some applied implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords: Likert scale, reliability, validity, number of choices

In practice, the number of alternatives most frequently
found in Likert-type scales is five, which is actually what
Likert (1932) himself proposed on presenting his method,
though he never explained the precise psychometric rea-
soning behind the number he chose. There is a good deal
of research on how the psychometric properties of a scale
are affected by the number of response alternatives (Fer-
rando, 1995, 2000; Hernández, Muñiz & García-Cueto,
2000; Laveault & Grégoire, 1997; Moreno, Martínez, &
Muñiz, 2004; Muñiz, 2003; Sancerni, Meliá, & González-
Romá, 1990; Tomás & Oliver, 1998); in these researches
the authors found that when they increase the number of
choices the reliability (usually Cronbach’s α) and the fac-
torial validity of the scale are better; however, no clear an-
swer has emerged on the right number for maximizing
these properties (Muñiz, García-Cueto, & Lozano, 2000).
The majority of studies that attempt to discover the op-
timum number of alternatives take as a criterion the reli-
ability of the scale. Such studies examine whether different
numbers of alternatives affect reliability, and, if so, which
number maximizes it. Some authors (Aiken, 1983; Boote,
1981; Brown, Widing, & Coulter, 1991; McCallum, Keith,
& Wiebe, 1988, Weng, 2004) maintain that although reli-
ability tends to increase as the number of response options
rises, when the number of alternatives exceeds five or six,
reliability hardly increases further. The clearest conclusion
from such research is that the minimum number of catego-
ries for ensuring an appropriate level of reliability is four.
As regards the maximum number, some authors argue that
reliability is maximized with seven response alternatives
(Cicchetti, Showalter, & Tyrer, 1985; McKelvie, 1978;
Nunnally, 1970; Ramsay, 1973), while others prefer five
(Jenkings & Taber, 1977; Lissitz & Green, 1975; Neumann,
1979).
As far as factorial validity is concerned, there are several
studies on how it is affected as the number of response
options changes (Babakus, Ferguson, & Jöreskog, 1987;
DiStefano, 2002; Dolan, 1994; Green, Akey, Fleming,
Hershberger, & Marquis, 1997; Hutchinson & Olmos,
1998). Although these researches are focused on confirma-
tory factor analyses, the main idea that the greater the cat-
egorization imply a greater loss of information, and, in turn,
a greater attenuation of the relationships between items,
can be applied to the exploratory factor analyses. In those
studies that compare the dichotomous format with that of
seven response alternatives (Bernstein & Teng, 1989;
Comrey & Montag, 1982; King, King, & Klockars, 1983;
Oswald & Velicer, 1980; Velicer, DiClemente, & Corri-
veau, 1984) the data indicate better factorial validity with
seven options than with two. The fact that the validity of
the questionnaire changes according to the number of re-
sponse options is a matter of considerable importance, po-
tentially calling into question the construct validity of the
variable measured (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, &
Rucker, 2002; Muñiz, García-Cueto, & Lozano, 2005).
A short discussion about the difference between the ar-
ticles using real data and the ones that use simulated data
can be found in Bandalos and Enders (1996).
Given the lack, in the literature reviewed, of a comprehen-
sive study relating the number of options of scales with their

© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79

DOI 10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73
74 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales

Table 1. Variation coefficient of the scale (N: sample size; rij: correlation between the items of the scale)
rij N Number of response categories
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.9 50 28.15 25.89 27.97 28.03 28.88 29.21 29.64 30.22
100 27.46 23.68 25.00 25.76 26.37 26.79 27.31 27.63
200 27.52 22.46 23.55 24.27 24.91 25.335 25.74 26.10
500 27.17 20.67 21.91 22.38 22.87 23.20 23.69 23.88
0.8 50 25.52 22.90 24.30 25.05 25.75 26.20 26.83 27.00
100 25.43 21.38 22.70 23.46 24.15 24.67 25.06 25.35
200 25.49 19.84 21.37 21.91 22.53 22.93 23.34 23.62
500 25.81 20.62 20.01 19.86 20.95 21.35 21.70 22.04
0.7 50 23.79 20.64 22.00 22.68 23.48 24.34 24.42 24.51
100 23.38 18.92 20.45 21.16 21.75 22.18 22.54 22.82
200 23.15 17.63 19.22 19.88 20.45 20.80 21.19 21.41
500 23.69 16.09 18.11 18.54 19.03 19.38 19.74 19.93
0.6 50 21.38 18.32 19.61 20.43 21.04 21.45 21.77 21.94
100 21.40 16.94 18.39 19.06 19.73 20.08 20.41 20.56
200 21.44 16.02 17.66 18.29 18.82 19.19 19.49 19.68
500 21.36 14.51 16.51 18.39 17.42 17.80 18.10 18.21
0.5 50 19.35 16.26 17.52 18.25 18.77 19.19 19.40 19.69
100 20.09 15.11 16.67 17.24 17.72 18.96 19.40 18.53
200 19.65 14.34 16.08 16.67 17.14 17.49 17.75 18.02
500 20.02 13.20 15.97 15.84 16.24 16.56 16.89 16.59
0.4 50 17.68 14.55 15.77 16.43 16.82 17.10 17.48 17.69
100 17.61 13.57 15.06 15.53 15.99 16.34 16.58 16.85
200 17.23 12.68 14.54 14.71 15.29 15.41 15.66 16.31
500 17.51 11.68 13.65 14.13 14.65 14.68 14.94 15.05
0.3 50 15.35 12.80 14.46 14.42 14.87 14.95 15.41 15.59
100 15.05 11.63 12.97 13.40 13.55 13.96 14.20 14.36
200 15.52 11.78 12.63 13.14 13.38 13.62 13.85 14.04
500 10.55 10.23 11.92 12.23 12.54 12.86 13.06 13.08
0.2 50 13.17 10.73 11.67 12.15 13.29 12.69 12.91 13.02
100 12.92 9.83 10.92 11.32 12.54 11.71 11.98 12.09
200 12.85 9.19 10.46 10.64 10.97 11.15 11.32 11.40
500 13.07 8.44 9.96 10.16 10.43 10.62 10.79 10.88

psychometric properties, the principal objective of the pre-
sent work is to examine in a systematic fashion the influence
of the number of response alternatives of Likert-type scales
on the psychometric properties of the scale (reliability and
factorial validity). In addition to the number of response op-
tions, we shall take into account sample size and the correla-
tions between the items making up the questionnaire or test.
Method
Data Simulation
By means of PRELIS (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), we sim-
ulated the responses to 30 items following a normal distri-
bution (0,1), with correlations between them of 0.9, 0.8,
0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2. The number of response
categories of the items ranged from 2 to 9. Four sample
sizes were used: 50, 100, 200, and 500 cases. In sum, in the
design employed we crossed four sample sizes (50, 100,
200, and 500), eight sizes of correlation between the items
(0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2) and eight levels of
response categories (9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2). Data were
simulated to represent a one-factor model. In total we gen-
erated 256 (4 × 8 × 8) simulation conditions. For each one
of these conditions 100 samples were simulated, giving a
total of 25,600 simulated samples.
With this design it was aimed to cover in systematic
fashion the entire possible range of correlations between
items, and the whole range of numbers of response catego-

Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales 75

Table 2. Coefficient α of the scales (N: sample size; rij: correlation between the items of the scale)
rij N Number of response categories
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.9 50 .987 .988 .991 .993 .994 .994 .995 .995
100 .986 .988 .990 .992 .993 .994 .994 .994
200 .987 .987 .990 .991 .993 .993 .994 .995
500 .987 .986 .989 .991 .992 .993 .994 .994
0.8 50 .977 .980 .984 .986 .988 .989 .989 .990
100 .977 .979 .983 .986 .988 .988 .989 .990
200 .977 .977 .982 .985 .987 .988 .989 .990
500 .977 .976 .981 .983 .986 .988 .989 .989
0.7 50 .967 .970 .976 .979 .981 .982 .982 .983
100 .967 .968 .975 .979 .981 .982 .983 .984
200 .966 .962 .974 .978 .980 .982 .983 .983
500 .966 .964 .973 .977 .979 .981 .982 .983
0.6 50 .953 .957 .965 .970 .972 .974 .974 .975
100 .952 .954 .964 .969 .972 .973 .974 .975
200 .953 .954 .964 .969 .972 .973 .974 .975
500 .953 .950 .962 .967 .970 .973 .974 .974
0.5 50 .938 .943 .953 .959 .961 .963 .964 .965
100 .936 .939 .951 .956 .959 .961 .962 .961
200 .936 .936 .950 .956 .960 .962 .963 .964
500 .937 .933 .949 .952 .960 .961 .963 .964
0.4 50 .910 .917 .931 .938 .941 .943 .945 .946
100 .915 .917 .933 .939 .944 .946 .947 .948
200 .913 .913 .930 .938 .942 .944 .946 .941
500 .913 .910 .929 .937 .941 .944 .946 .947
0.3 50 .863 .883 .898 .911 .915 .918 .919 .921
100 .872 .876 .898 .907 .912 .915 .917 .918
200 .877 .881 .901 .911 .917 .916 .921 .922
500 .877 .871 .898 .908 .914 .918 .920 .922
0.2 50 .812 .823 .849 .860 .866 .871 .873 .873
100 .812 .814 .845 .858 .864 .868 .869 .875
200 .816 .812 .847 .857 .866 .869 .871 .874
500 .814 .801 .841 .855 .863 .868 .872 .873

ries of the scales. As regards sample sizes, we selected
those most commonly used by psychologists and teachers.
As far as the items with just two alternatives are concerned,
these are clearly not Likert-type, but we have included
items of this type since it may be interesting to compare
this binary response format (customary in tests and ques-
tionnaires) with the true Likert-type scale format.
Data Analysis
For the statistical analysis we used the SPSS 12.5 package.
First of all we calculated the descriptive statistics of the
samples. Reliability was assessed by means of the α coef-
ficient, and validity was evaluated using indicators of fac-
torial validity (percentage of variance explained by the first
factor). The method of extraction used in the factor analysis
was that of maximum likelihood asking for a factor because
data were simulated according to a one-factor structure.
Results
There are lot of problems to compare the variability of
groups with clearly different means. Usually biggest means
implies biggest standard deviations. In this research we
used the variation coefficient to compare the variability of
the different groups. The results showed here are the aver-
ages of the 100 replications per cell of the different statis-

© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79

76 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales

Table 3. Number of significant differences between number

of choices (N: sample size; rij: correlation between
the items of the scale)
rij N
50 100 200 500
0.9 11 16 21 24
0.8 9 13 19 22
0.7 7 12 18 21
0.6 7 11 16 21
0.5 4 10 15 20
0.4 2 9 11 18
0.3 4 8 11 17
0.2 0 6 10 16
Figure 1. Coefficient α of the scales.

Table 4. Percentage of variance explained by the first factor (N: sample size; rij: correlation between the items of the scale)
rij N Number of alternatives
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.9 50 72.89 75.54 79.73 82.74 84.44 86.04 86.95 87.78
100 71.54 73.79 77.93 81.14 83.28 84.88 86.05 86.95
200 72.23 72.39 76.88 80.02 82.47 84.19 85.56 86.46
500 72.04 71.53 75.68 79.03 81.56 83.48 84.92 85.93
0.8 50 59.83 63.97 68.83 72.08 74.43 75.75 76.92 77.48
100 60.31 62.26 67.48 71.11 73.78 75.40 76.53 77.32
200 60.40 60.70 66.38 69.93 72.98 74.69 76.01 76.87
500 59.99 58.69 64.71 68.72 71.62 73.89 75.33 76.34
0.7 50 52.24 54.18 59.67 62.93 65.20 66.52 67.48 68.10
100 51.65 52.38 58.76 62.35 64.70 66.30 67.64 68.09
200 50.76 50.96 57.01 60.97 63.72 65.40 66.56 67.38
500 50.77 49.06 55.77 59.76 62.79 64.71 66.01 67.09
0.6 50 43.50 45.73 50.80 54.15 55.81 57.27 58.02 58.75
100 42.37 43.90 49.58 53.06 55.09 56.50 57.55 58.06
200 42.75 43.01 48.72 52.69 55.04 56.62 57.60 58.32
500 42.57 41.02 47.68 51.50 54.06 55.74 56.92 57.70
0.5 50 37.00 38.64 43.61 46.61 48.06 49.48 49.91 50.23
100 35.24 36.55 41.73 44.58 46.39 47.58 48.31 48.73
200 35.41 35.47 41.19 44.35 46.23 47.66 48.47 49.08
500 33.37 31.95 38.37 42.06 43.63 45.16 46.50 46.86
0.4 50 29.40 30.74 34.58 36.95 38.07 38.86 39.49 39.92
100 29.56 32.80 34.42 36.96 38.63 39.50 40.20 40.75
200 28.68 28.68 34.02 35.99 37.21 38.61 39.44 39.94
500 28.38 27.45 33.15 35.51 37.89 38.36 39.02 39.58
0.3 50 23.18 24.47 27.69 29.40 30.47 31.07 31.27 31.81
100 22.14 22.75 26.12 27.80 28.93 29.45 30.13 30.39
200 22.23 22.59 26.23 28.23 29.39 30.17 30.77 31.12
500 22.09 21.17 25.47 27.42 28.82 30.35 30.29 30.72
0.2 50 14.76 15.64 17.81 19.03 19.62 20.10 20.45 20.55
100 13.72 13.93 16.72 17.90 18.45 19.03 19.43 19.59
200 13.39 13.22 16.08 17.10 18.21 18.51 18.78 19.20
500 15.75 15.01 18.03 19.44 20.31 20.91 21.08 21.60

Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales
Figure 2. Percentage of variance explained by the first fac-
tor.
tics. Table 1 shows the variation coefficient of the scales
according to number of categories, correlations between
the items and sample size. As it can be seen, as the number
of alternatives is reduced the variation coefficient also de-
crease systematically. It should be noted that there is an
exception to this systematic increase in the variability as
the number of response categories increases: on moving
from two to three categories this increase does not occur;
indeed, in many cases the variability with three response
categories is lower than in the case of two categories. In
this table we can see the trend of increasing the variation
coefficient when the correlation is also increasing.
Table 2 shows the reliability coefficients of the scales
according to number of response categories, correlations
between the items and sample size. As it can be seen, in
general the reliability increases as the number of response
options rises. It should be noted that in the sample of 500
cases this trend in the reliability coefficient undergoes a
reversal on moving from three to two categories. This
change in trend already begins to appear in the sample of
200 cases.
On the other hand, as expected, reliability falls as the
correlation between the items decreases.
If we analyze the reliability of the scale, regardless of
the correlation between the items, but taking into account
sample size and number of alternatives (Figure 1), we find
that the trend is the same as that displayed previously. That
is, reliability increases as the number of alternatives offered
increases even though the variation is very slight.
The differences on reliability between the number of
choices leaving constant the rest of parameters (correlation
and sample size) were calculated using the Feldt test (Hak-
stian & Whalen, 1976; Alsawalmeh & Feldt, 1999; Feldt
& Seanghoon, 2006) finding that the differences can be
explained by the sample size and the correlation of the
items. As it can be seen (Table 3) when the sample size
and/or the correlation increase the number of significant
differences increases. In the most frequent correlations in
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
77
real tests (0.2, 0.3) the differences are only found between
the extreme alternatives.
On observing the behavior of the percentage of variance
explained by the first factor (Table 4), we find that it tends
to fall as the number of alternatives decreases. It is worthy
of note that once more there is a reversal of this trend in
the samples of 500 cases with two response options.
In all the situations studied it is found that as the number
of response alternatives decreases, the percentage of ex-
plained variance also falls. In the samples with 500 cases
the minimum is always obtained with three alternatives, not
with two.
If we consider the variance explained by the first factor
as a function of the number of alternatives (Figure 2), re-
gardless of the correlation between the variables, we find
that the percentage decreases as the number of response
options falls, even though there is a reversal of this trend
in the sample of 500 cases when there are just 2 response
alternatives. This change in trend already begins to appear
in the sample of 200 cases.
Discussion and Conclusions
The results presented show that the reliability of Likert-
type scales, assessed using the α coefficient, decreases as
the number of response options is reduced. When we re-
duce the number of choices we are reducing the variability
of the scale too, so the reliability decrease. This trend is
maintained for the different samples sizes used and for the
different sizes of correlations between the items of the
scale. This general rule has an interesting exception, and
one with clear applied implications: The reliability of
scales with two categories is slightly higher than that ob-
tained with three categories. This appears more clearly
when the samples are large, especially in those with 500
cases. The explanation for this intriguing anomaly can be
found by considering the behavior of the variability when
the scales have three response categories. In this case the
variability decreases, since the majority of cases are con-
centrated in the central category, so that this reduction af-
fects all the statistics, including the reliability coefficient:
as is well known, this decreases as the variability of the
sample in which it is calculated decrease. An applied cor-
ollary of this result is the inadvisability of using three re-
sponse categories in Likert-type scales, though it is not un-
common to find such scales in practice.
As regards factorial validity, assessed through the per-
centage of variance explained by the first factor, we
found that it decreases as the number of response options
is reduced, regardless of the correlations between the
items and sample size. In the large samples (200 and 500
cases) we find the same effect as for reliability in the case
of scales with three response alternatives. The explana-
tion is the same as that given for reliability, namely, that
Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79
78 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales
variability falls in the case of three response categories.
It should be noted that the fit to the unidimensional model
proposed (the data were simulated in accordance with a
one-dimensional structure) improves on increasing the
number of response options of the scale. When sample
size and number of response options are kept constant,
so that only the correlations between the items are mod-
ified, it can be seen how as these fall, both the value of
the reliability coefficient and the percentage of variance
explained by the first factor decrease, which is as expect-
ed. Highest scores in variability correspond to the sample
with 50 cases, followed by those with 100, 200, and 500,
respectively. This is an instrumental artefact due to the
data simulation technique employed. The program used
for the simulation (PRELIS), despite theoretically simu-
lating data between minus infinity and plus infinity, in
practice draws limits, and simulates between + 6 and –6,
approximately. On employing these limits, regardless of
sample size, a sample of 50 cases generates a greater dis-
persion than when the simulation is with a sample of 100
cases, whose dispersion will in turn be greater than with
one of 200 cases, and so on. This effect means that in the
sample of 50 cases we systematically obtain the highest
dispersions in all the analyses carried out.
Our results permit the conclusion that, considering cri-
teria of reliability and validity, the minimum number of
response categories for items with Likert-type format
should be al least of four. As regards the ideal number, the
data indicate that from seven categories onwards the gains
are scarce from a psychometric point of view, suggesting
the use of between four and seven. In practice, on deter-
mining the maximum number of response alternatives, it is
advisable to complement the psychometric criterion with
consideration of the particular characteristics of the sample
in question. Thus, it should be ensured that the number of
response options will be such that it does not exceed the
discriminative capacity of the subjects. If too many alter-
natives are offered and the subject has problems discrimi-
nating between them, there is greater likelihood of the in-
troduction of new measurement errors. Given that the poor-
est results are obtained with two or three response
alternatives, from a psychometric perspective, it is advis-
able for questionnaires to avoid using such formats. In ad-
dition to the psychometric reasons, it should be borne in
mind that respondents prefer formats with a larger number
of response alternatives, as this permits them to more clear-
ly express their point of view (Muñiz, Cueto, & Lozano,
2005).
Acknowledgments
This work was financed by project IB205–027 from the
Regional Government of Asturias, and by project
SEJ2005–08924, from the Spanish Government.
Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79
References
Aiken, L.R. (1983). Number of response categories and statistics
on a teacher rating scale. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 43, 397–401.
Alsawalmeh, Y.M., & Feldt, L.S. (1999). Testing the equality of
two independent α coefficients adjusted by the Spearman-
Brown formula. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23,
363–370.
Babakus, E., Ferguson, C.E., & Jöreskog, K.G. (1987). The sen-
sitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to
violations of measurement scale and distributional assump-
tions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 222–228.
Bandalos, D.L., & Enders, C.K. (1996). The effect of nonnormal-
ity and number of response categories on reliability. Applied
Measurement in Education, 9, 151–160.
Bernstein, I.H., & Teng, H. (1989). Factoring items and factoring
scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality
due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 186–204.
Boote, A.S. (1981). Reliability testing of psychographic scales:
Five-point or seven-point? Anchored or labeled? Journal of
Advertising Research, 21, 53–60.
Brown, G., Widing, R.E., & Coulter, R.L. (1991). Customer eval-
uation of retail salespeople utilizing the SOCO scale: A repli-
cation, extension, and application. Journal of Academy Mar-
keting Science, 9, 347–351.
Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P.J. (1985). The effect of
number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reli-
ability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 9, 31–36.
Comrey, A.L., & Montang, I. (1982). Comparison of factor ana-
lytic results with two choice and seven choice personality item
formats. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 285–289.
DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confir-
matory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Mul-
tidisciplinary Journal, 9, 327–346.
Dolan, C.V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and
7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable
estimator using simulated data. British Journal of Mathemat-
ical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 309–326.
Feldt, L.S., & Seonghoon, K. (2006). Testing the difference be-
tween two α coefficients with small samples of subjects and
raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,
589–600.
Ferrando, P.J. (1995). Equivalencia entre los formatos Likert y
continuo en ítems de personalidad: un estudio empírico
[Equivalence between the Likert and continuous format in per-
sonality items: An empirical study]. Psicológica, 16, 417–428.
Ferrando, P.J. (2000). Testing the equivalence among different
item response formats in personality measurement: A structur-
al equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 7(2), 271–286.
Green, S.B., Akey, T.M., Fleming, K.K., Hershberger, S.L., &
Marquis, J.G. (1997). Effect of the number of the scale points
on χ² fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 108–120.
Hakstian, A.R., & Whalen, T.E. (1976). A K-sample significance
test for independent α coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 219–231.
Hernández, A., Muñiz, J., & García-Cueto, E. (2000). Comporta-
miento del modelo de respuesta graduada en función del nú-
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 L.M. Lozano et al.: Response Categories and the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales
mero de categorías de la escala [Graded model trend based on
the number of the response categories of the scale]. Psicothe-
ma, Suppl. 2, 288–291.
Hutchinson, S.R., & Olmos, A. (1998). Behaviour of descriptive
fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis using ordered cate-
gorical data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplin-
ary Journal,5, 344–364.
Jenkings, C.D., & Taber, T.A. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of
factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 392–398.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). PRELIS 2 user’s reference
guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
King, L.A., King, D., & Klockars, A.J. (1983). Dichotomous and
multipoint scales using bipolar adjectives. Applied Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 7, 173–180.
Laveault, D., & Grégoire, J. (1997). Introduction aux théories des
tests en sciences humaines [Introduction to the test theory in
the human sciences]. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives of Psychology, 140, 44–53.
Lissitz, R.W., & Green, S.B. (1.975). Effects of the number of
scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.
MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J., & Rucker, D.D.
(2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative vari-
ables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.
McCallum, L.S., Keith, B.R., & Wiebe, D.T. (1988). Comparison
of response formats for multidimensional health locus of con-
trol scales: Six levels versus two levels. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52, 732–736.
McKelvie, S.J. (1978). Graphic rating scales. How many catego-
ries? British Journal of Psychology, 69, 185–202.
Moreno, R., Martínez, R.J., & Muñiz, J. (2004). Directrices para la
construcción de ítems de elección múltiple [A guide to the mul-
tiple choice items development]. Psicothema, 16, 490–497.
Muñiz, J. (2003). Teoría clásica de los tests [Classical test theory].
Madrid: Pirámide.
Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L.M. (2000). The influ-
ence of the number of categories of the items on the psycho-
metric properties of the scale. Paper presented at the XXVII
International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
79
Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L.M. (2005). Item format
and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
61–69.
Neumann, L. (1979). Effects of categorization on relationships in
bivariate distributions and applications to rating scales. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 40, 2262-B.
Nunnally, J.C. (1970). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Oswald, I., & Velicer, W.F. (1989). Item format and the structure
of the EPI: A replication. Journal of Personality Assessment,
44, 283–288.
Ramsay, J.O. (1973). Effects of number of categories in rating
scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychomet-
rika, 38, 513–532.
Sancerni, M.D., Meliá, J.L., & González-Romá, V. (1990). For-
mato de respuesta, fiabilidad y validez en la medición de con-
flicto de rol [Answer format, reliability, and validity in the roll
conflict measurement]. Psicológica, 11, 167–175.
Tomas, J.M., & Oliver, A. (1998). Efectos de formato de respuesta
y método de estimación en el análisis factorial confirmatorio
[Effect of the format answer and estimation method in the con-
firmatory factor analysis]. Psicothema, 10, 197–208.
Velicer, W., DiClemente, C.C., & Corriveau, D.P. (1984). Item
format and the structure of the personal orientation inventory.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 409–419.
Weng, L.J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories
and anchor labels on coefficient α test-retest reliability. Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956–972.
Luis M. Lozano
Facultad de Psicología
Universidad de Jaén
Campus Las Lagunillas
E-23071 Jaén
Spain
E-mail lmlozano@ujaen.es
Methodology 2008; Vol. 4(2):73–79