Scaling in Quantitative Survey in Management Science Research: The Perspective of Likert Scale
Abstract
The research process entails the collection of data through questionnaire providing a ranking scale platform for measuring the respondents’ responses. Thus, this paper explores the topic of scaling in quantitative survey research in the field of management science, with a focus on Likert scaling. The paper delves into the types of scaling discussed in the literature, incorporating classical test theory as well as item response theory as guiding frameworks for its objectives. Employing a qualitative research approach, the paper allows for the use of contextual analysis through Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA). Presented is an overview of the various types of Likert scaling including 2-point, 3-point, 4-point, 5- point, 6-point, 7-point, 9-point, and beyond. The paper also argues that the 6-point Likert scale is the most appropriate scaling method for management science research as it divides the neutral option (mid-point) issue into parts of agreement and disagreement. The study recommends that management science researchers should familiarize themselves with the different types of Likert scale in order to determine the most appropriate for their studies. The paper suggests that the 6-point Likert scale is particularly relevant for studies within the management sciences field.
References
References
- Abdi, H. (2010). Guttman scaling. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design. Sage.
- Acharya, B. (2010). Questionnaire design. Central Department of Population Studies.
- Alhassan, I., Asiamah, N., Opuni, F. F., & Alhassan, A. (2022). The Likert scale: Exploring the unknowns and their potential to mislead the world. UDS International Journal of Development, 9(2), 867–880. Crossref
- Andersson, B., & Xin, T. (2018). Large sample confidence intervals for item response theory reliability coefficients. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(1), 32–45. Crossref
- Armstrong, R. L. (1987). The midpoint on five-point Likert-type scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64(2), 359–362. Crossref
- Benidiktus, T., Rully, C. I. P., & Jeinne, M. (2022). Likert scale in social sciences research: Problems and difficulties. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 16(4), 89–101. Crossref
- Bourdel, N., Alves, J., Pickering, G., Ramilo, I., Roman, H., & Canis, M. (2015). Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: How to choose a scale? Human Reproduction Update, 21(1), 136–152.
- Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths, and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.
- Carlson, M. A., Morris, S., Day, F., Dadich, A., Ryan, A., Fradgley, E. A., & Paul, C. (2021). Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: A systematic review. Implement Science, 6(1), 85. Crossref
- Choudhury, S., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2014). Optimal number of scale points in Likert-type scales for quantifying compulsive buying behaviour. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4(3), 432–440.
- Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–23. Crossref
- Chyung, S. Y., Swanson, I., Roberts, K., & Hankinson, A. (2018). Evidence‐based survey design: The use of continuous rating scales in surveys. Performance Improvement, 57(5), 38–48. Crossref
- Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. Sage.
- Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22.
- Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. Crossref
- Guy, R. F., & Norvell, M. (1977). The neutral point on a Likert scale. The Journal of Psychology, 95(2), 199–204. Crossref
- Hilbert, S., Küchenhoff, H., Sarubin, N., Nakagawa, T. T., & Bühner, M. (2016). The influence of the response format in a personality questionnaire: An analysis of a dichotomous, a Likert-type, and a visual analogue scale. Testing, Psychometry, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 23(1), 3–24. Crossref
Total number of hits on abstract = 131 times
Downloads for 2025

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.