Recodificación de escalas tipo Likert a través de la clasificación no supervisada. Las implicaciones de las relaciones por Internet respecto a las relaciones presenciales como estudio de caso

M. Isabel  Landaluce Calvo

doi:10.3989/ris.2024.82.2.M23-06

Autores/as

M. Isabel Landaluce Calvo Universidad de Burgos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3963-7485

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2024.82.2.M23-06

Palabras clave:

Cuestionario, escalas, tablas múltiples mixtas, espacio factorial compromiso, clústeres

Resumen

Una de las decisiones más importantes en el diseño de un cuestionario es la elección de la/s escala/s de medición. Una escala habitual en preguntas sobre valoraciones u opiniones es la escala tipo Likert, que oscila entre el 0 o el 1 (peor valoración/desacuerdo) y el 10 (máxima valoración/acuerdo). Es frecuente que los investigadores decidan recodificar esta escala. En este contexto, se presenta un protocolo que facilita esta tarea de simplificación. La secuenciación metodológica integrada por el análisis factorial y el análisis de clasificación presenta varias ventajas. Además de permitir el tratamiento de la escala original desde dos ópticas, proporciona una recodificación óptima con la mínima pérdida de información. La aplicación a una pregunta extraída del estudio n.º 3325 del Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, relativa a las implicaciones de las relaciones por Internet respecto a las presenciales en tiempos de pandemia, pone de manifiesto la utilidad y versatilidad de la propuesta.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Abascal, Elena y Vidal Díaz de Rada. 2014. "Analysis of 0 to 10-point response scales using factorial methods: A new perspective". International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17: 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.799736

Abascal, Elena, Vidal Díaz de Rada, Ignacio García-Lautre y M. Isabel Landaluce. 2019. "Scale recoding in sociological research: a new validation methodology. An application to a political survey". Revista Internacional de Sociología 77(2): e130. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2019.77.2.17.088

Aluja, Tomás y Alain Morineau. 1999. "Aprender de los datos: el análisis de componentes principales. Una aproximación desde el Data Mining". Barcelona: EUB.

Alwin, Duane F. 1997. "Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales". Sociological Methods and Research 3(25): 318-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197025003003

Baka, Aphrodite, Lia Figgou y Vasiliki Triga. 2013. "Neither agree, nor disagree': a critical analysis of the middle answer category in Voting Advice Applications". International Journal of Electronic Governance 5 (3-4): 244-263. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.051306

Biasetton, Nicolò, Marta Disegna, Elena Barzizza y Luigi Salmaso. 2023. "A new adaptive membership function with CUB uncertainty with application to cluster analysis of Likert-type data". Expert Systems with Applications 213: Part A. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118893

Bishop, George F. 1987. "Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions". Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1086/269030

Borgatta, Edgar F. y George W. Bohrnstedt. 1980. "Level of Measurement-Once Over Again". Sociological Methods & Research 9(2): 147-160 https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418000900202

Carifio, James y Rocco J. Perla. 2007. "Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes". Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3): 106-116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116

Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS). 2021. Encuesta sobre relaciones sociales y afectivas en tiempos de pandemia de la COVID-19 (I). Estudio 3325. Consulta 04/04/2022. https://www.cis.es/detalle-ficha-estudio?origen=estudio&idEstudio=14571

Cox, Eli P. 1980. "The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review". Journal of Marketing Research 12: 158-167.

Dawes, John. 2008. "Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales". International Journal of Market Research 50 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106

De Vellis, Robert F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Application. London: Sage.

Escofier, Brigitte y Jérôme Pagès. 2016. Analysis Factorielles Simples et Multiples. Cours et études des cas. 5e'ed, Paris: Dunod.

Garg, Rajendar. 1996. "The influence of positive and negative wording and issue involvement on responses to Likert scales in marketing research". International Journal of Market Research 38(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539603800304

Hartley, James y Lucy R. Betts. 2010. "Four layouts and a finding: the effects of changes in the order of the verbal labels and numerical values on Liker-type scales". International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13 (1): 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802648077

Hodge, David R. y David F. Gillespie. 2007. "Phrase completion scales: A better measurement approach than Likert Scales?". Journal of Social Service Research 33(4): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v33n04_01

Jamieson, Susan. 2004. "Likert scales: How to (ab)use them". Medical Education 38: 1212-1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x PMid:15566531

Joshi, Ankur, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel y Dinesh K. Pal. 2015. "Likert Scale: Explored and Explained". Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 7(4): 396-403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

Johns, Robert. 2005. "One Size Doesn't Fit All: Selecting Response Scales For Attitude Items". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 15(2): 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849

Knapp, Thomas R. 1990. "Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy". Nursing Research 39: 121-123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199003000-00019 PMid:2315066

Krosnick, Jon A. y Leandre R. Fabrigar. 1997. "Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys". Pp. 141-164 en Survey Measurement and Process Quality, editado por Lars E. Lyberg, Paul Biemer, Martin Collins, Edith de Leeuw, Cathryn Dippo, Norbert Schwarz and Dennis Trewin, New York: Wiley.

Krosnick, Jon A. y Stanley Presser. 2010. "Question and questionnaire design". Pp 263-313 en Handbook of Survey Research. 2nd. ed., editado por James D. Wright y Peter V. Marsden. Bingley (U.K.): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Krosnick, Jon A., Charles M. Judd y Bernd Wittenbrink. 2019. "The Measurement of Attitudes". Pp. 45-106 en The Handbook of Attitudes. Volume 1: Basic Principles. 2nd. ed., editado por Dolores Albarracín y Blair T. Johnson, Abingdon: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.

Le, Sébastian, Julie Josse y François Husson. 2008. "FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis". Journal of Statistical Software 25(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01

Lebart, Ludovic, Marie Piron y Alain Morineau. 2006. Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. 4e éd. Paris: Dunod.

Leung, Shing-On. 2011. "A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales". Journal of Social Service Research 37: 412-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697

Likert, Rensis. 1932. "A technique for the measurement of attitudes". Archives of Psychology 140: 5-53.

Lundmark, Sebastian, Mikael Gilljam y Stefan Dahlberg. 2016. "Measuring generalized trust: An examination of question wording and the number of scale points". Public Opinion Quarterly 80(1): 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv042 PMid:27433027 PMCid:PMC4884812

Lyons, William. 1998. "Beyond agreement and disagreement: the inappropriate use of Likert items in the applied research culture". International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1(1): 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846864

Maitland, Aaron. 2009. "How Many Scale Points Should I Include for Attitudinal Questions?" Survey Practice 2 (5) 1-4. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2009-0023

McCarty, John A. y Lawrence J. Shrum. 2000. "The measurement of personal values in survey research: a test of alternative rating procedures". Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 271-298. https://doi.org/10.1086/317989 PMid:11114269

Moors, Guy. 2008. "Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement". Quality and Quantity 42(6): 779-794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9067-x PMid:20084107 PMCid:PMC2798975

Nadler, Joel, Rebecca Weston y Elora C. Voyles. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.994590 PMid:25832738

O'Brien, Robert M. 1979. "The use of Pearson's r whit Ordinal Data". American Sociological Review 44: 851-857 https://doi.org/10.2307/2094532

Revilla, Melanie A., Willen E. Saris y Jon A. Krosnick. 2014. "Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree-Disagree Scales". Sociological Methods & Research 43(1): 73-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113509605

Saris, Willen E. y Irmtraud N. Gallhofer. 2007. Design, evaluation and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470165195

Schwarz, Norbert, Carla E. Grayson y Bärbel Knäuper. 1998. "Formal features of rating scales and the interpretation of question meaning". International Journal of Public Opinion Research 10: 177-183. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/10.2.177

Stevens, Stanley S. 1946. "On the theory of scales of measurement". Science 103: 677-680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677

Tsui, Ming-Sum. 1997. "Empirical research on social work supervision: The state of the art (1970-1995)". Journal of Social Service Research 23(2): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v23n02_03

Wu, Huiping y Shing-On Leung. 2017. "Can Likert Scales be Treated as Interval Scales?-A Simulation Study". Journal of Social Service Research 43(4): 527-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775