Development and Scoring of an Attitude Scale
Kim Germany, Lizette Leader, Sarah Schillage-Truxillo
Jeffrey Oescher
Southeastern Louisiana University
Symposium Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Educational Research Association
Lafayette, Louisiana
13 March 2014
-1-
Introduction
Human characteristics are often categorized into three dimensions: 1) cognitive, 2) psychomotor,
or affective (Anderson and Bourke, 2000). The first reflects the ways people think, the second the way
they behave, and the third the way they feel. The third category - the way people feel - is the focus of this
symposium.
One of the common affective characteristics measured in education is attitude. Attitudes are
defined as learned predispositions to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with
respect to a given object (Anderson and Bourke, 2000). In order to measure attitudes, one must define
the object toward which attitudes are being considered, the underlying continuum onto which a
respondent is positioned based on the intensity of their feelings toward he object, and the ways by which
items and responses can be written to accurately position a respondent. Figure 1 is a graphic
representation of these ideas. Additional examples are presented in Appendix A.
Unfavorable
Negative
Object
Favorable
Positive
Figure 1
A Continuum of Attitude toward a Particular Object
There are several ways to accomplish this. One is to write specific items that are somewhat
equally positioned across the entire continuum. Respondents are asked then to mark those statements
with which they agree. Without going into details, the average of a respondent’s item scores positions
them on the underlying continuum. This is known as a Thurstone scale, and it is rather cumbersome to
develop. Another scale, the Guttman, is even more complicated to develop because the items are not
only ordered across the underlying continuum, but they are hierarchal. That is, is a respondent agrees
with the third item they necessarily had to have agreed with the first two items. This type of scale is
extremely difficult to develop and validate.
One of the best methods to accomplish these tasks is to develop what commonly is known as a
Likert scale. A Likert scale consists of items written on either the extremely negative end of the continuum
(e.g., I hate golf) or the extremely positive end of the continuum (e.g., I love golf). Responses are made
by choosing the alternative that best describes the extent to which the respondent agrees with the
statement (e.g., SD, D, N, A, SA). By choosing a specific response, the respondent will position
themselves on the continuum. That is, if a respondent Strongly Agrees with the statement I love school,
they are said to have a strong, positive attitude.
The purpose of this presentation is to discuss briefly three issues related to the development and
use of a Likert attitude scale: writing items, scoring Likert items, and interpreting Likert scores. Before
discussing these issuses, we would like to clarify some terminology. First, we refer to the collection of
items measuring a respondent’s attitudes as a scale. When measuring attitudes, the title of the scale
typically includes the object of interest. Thus, one can find scales such as Attitudes toward School,
Attitudes toward Teacher Evaluation, etc. Second, each item on a scale reflects some aspect of
importance to the development of the attitude being studied (i.e., the issues of content and construct
validity). If more than one aspect or the trait is being measured, we use the term subscale to refer to the
subset of items measuring that aspect. Subscales measure the underlying constitutive dimensions of the
trait. Thus, we can talk about a principal’s attitudes toward professional learning communities in terms of
the shared and supportive leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application,
shared personal practice, and supportive conditions (Olivier, Hipp, and Huffman, 2010). Finally, any item
-2-
on a scale includes a set of responses which reflect varying levels agreement to the content.
Respondents select the specific response that best describes the intensity of their feeling toward the
object being measured. We refer to set of responses as a Likert response scale.
Writing Items
While the specific content of an item will differ based on the object being measured, there are two general
rules should be followed when writing an item. The first is to write the item as a declarative sentence. This
rule suggests the statement “School is fun.” is a better item than “Is school fun?” The use of a simple
sentence structure – subject, predicate, predicate adjective – can simplify writing an item because one
can focus the direction of the statement (i.e., positive or negative) on the predicate adjective. Adjectives
such as good, bad, fair, unfair, ethical, unethical usually are emotionally laden and work well in scale
items because the emotional reaction to them clearly defines polar opposite ends of the underlying
continuum. Two examples of items using this format are “School is fun.” and “School is boring.” Another
sentence structure – subject, predicate, direct object – can be helpful because it is easy for one to
capture the direction of the statement with the choice of a verb. Two examples of this format are “I love
school.” and “I hate school.” Again, these verbs are emotionally charged and thus reflect opposite ends of
the underlying continuum.
The second rule is to ensure all statements are clearly either favorable or unfavorable with respect to the
underlying object. The statements “School is fun” or “School is boring” reflect respectively a positive or
negative attitude to school. These are perfectly acceptable statements for a Likert scale. The statement
“School is OK.” is not acceptable, however, because it represents neither a positive or negative attitude
toward school. A response of strongly disagree to this statement could mean the respondent feels school
is fabulous, but it also could mean they feel it is horrible. Writing statements that are NOT clearly positive
or negative will result in responses that cannot be interpreted.
There is a host of advice available to anyone writing a Likert scale. Some of these suggestions are listed
below, and a brief guide for doing so can be found in Appendix B.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Include only relevant items
Avoid ambiguity, that is, be specific
Use simple language, not jargon
Include only one idea per statement
Avoid double negatives
Use consistent wording
Make the statements short (readers tend to skip parts of long sentences which can lead to
misunderstandings)
The Likert Response Scale.
The original Likert response scale included five alternatives: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral,
Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. These have been modified in many ways over many years. Some
changes reflect the number of response options (i.e., odd or even number of options), the strength or
intensity of the response options (e.g., very strongly agree or strongly agree), or the nature of the
underlying continuum (e.g., agree-disagree, important-unimportant, almost always- almost never).
Scoring a Likert Scale
Scoring a Likert scale should include computing descriptive statistics (i.e., number of
respondents, means, and standard deviations) for all subscales and the total scale. We would like to
recommend that all “total” scores (e.g., subscale scores, total scale scores) be calculated as the means of
the relevant group of items. On occasion, a respondent may not answer all items. In this situation, a
judgment must be made as to the minimum number of items required to compute a total score. For
example, one can justify computing a total score for a respondent who answers nine of the ten items on a
scale. On the other hand a total score is probably inappropriate for a respondent who answers only four
-3-
of the ten items. Generally speaking, answering approximately 75%-80% of the items on a scale will likely
produce a reliable score. The actual calculation of a total score for each respondent has been simplified
in SPSS with the use of the MEAN function. This function calculates the average for all non-missing
items. That is, the total score for the respondent who answers nine of the ten items reflects the sum of the
responses to each item divided by nine.
There are two advantages to calculating a total score in this manner in comparison to other ways
(e.g., summing all items). First, this method handles the problem associated with “scoring” missing items.
That is, there is no need to assume a respondent answered an item with any specific response. Second,
the metric of the total score reflects the underlying response scale. That is, the total scores for a five point
Likert response scale (i.e., SD, D, N, A, SA) would range from 1.00 to 5.00. These scores can be
interpreted quite easily by relating the response scale to the affective characteristic and its underlying
continuum.
Interpreting Likert Scores
The purpose of a Likert scale is to position a respondent on the underlying continuum related to
the affective characteristic being measured. By following the steps suggested in Appendix B, scale can be
developed that accurately positions a respondent on this continuum. Each item, as well as any score
calculated for groups of items, is scored relative to the response scale, but this scale must be interpreted
relative to the underlying continuum.
For example, once the instrument is scored, the metric of the total score reflects the underlying
response scale. As mentioned above, the total scores for a five point Likert response scale (i.e., SD, D,
N, A, SA) would range from 1.00 to 5.00. These scores can be interpreted quite easily by relating the
response scale to the affective characteristic and its underlying continuum. A respondent’s score of 4.10
reflects a typical response of “agreeing” with the items. A score of “agreeing” can be interpreted as a
favorable attitude. That is, a response of “agree” is associated with a favorable attitude. In a similar
manner, a score of 1.20 would be associated with a response of “strongly disagree” and reflect a very
unfavorable or negative attitude.
Unfortunately, interpretations of these scales are complicated by the fact that the underlying
continuum reflects the range of the responses. This means that a five point scale (e.g., SD, D, N, A, SA)
represents a range of four points (i.e., 1(SD) – 5(SA) = 4). A typical way of handing this situation is to
assign ranges of scores associated with specific responses. This results in having one or two responses
for which the range of the interpretations reflects a single point or two one-half points. An example will
perhaps help explain this matter. Recognizing that eventually a point is going to be “lost” the researcher
has a choice to locate this point 1) in the middle of the underlying continuum or 2) at both ends of the
underlying continuum. The first choice results in an interpretive scale with the following ranges.
Table 1
Score Interpretations for an Attitudinal Scale – Lost Point in the Middle
Range of Scores
1.00 - 1.99
2.00 - 2.99
2.991 - 2.999
3.00 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.00
Response
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Interpretation
Very Unfavorable
Unfavorable
Neither Unfavorable or Favorable
Favorable
Very Favorable
The second choice results in an interpretive scale with the following ranges.
Table 2
Score Interpretations for an Attitudinal Scale – Lost Point at both Ends
Range of Scores
Response
Interpretation
1.00 - 1.49
Strongly Disagree
Very Unfavorable
-4-
1.50 - 2.49
2.50 - 3,49
3.50 - 4.49
4.50 - 5.00
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
-5-
Unfavorable
Neither Unfavorable or Favorable
Favorable
Very Favorable
Appendix A
Affective Characteristics and their Targets (Anderson, 1981)
I.
Attitudes
A. A learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with
respect to a given object.
B. The target is usually an object
C. Attitudes can be favorable or unfavorable
1. Degrees of favorableness indicate the intensity of an attitude
D. Attitudes are generally considered an affective characteristic of moderate intensity
II. Interests
A. A learned disposition organized through experience which impels an individual to seek out
particular objects, activities, understanding, skills or goals for attention or acquisition
B. The target is usually some activity or skill
C. Interests can range from no interest to high interest
1. Degrees of interest indicate the intensity of interest
D. Interests are generally considered an affective characteristic of high intensity as they tend to
be action oriented, that is they impel people to seek out things
III. Values
A. A learned belief as to what should be desired (Getzels), what is important or cherished
(Tyler), and what standards of conduct or existence are personally or socially acceptable
(Rokeach)
B. The targets are many and varied (e.g., behaviors, activities, attitudes, etc.)
C. Values can be unimportant or important, or unacceptable or acceptable
1. Degrees of importance or acceptability indicate the intensity of the value
D. Values are generally considered an affective characteristic of high intensity (e.g., cherished,
prized, guides and determines action, etc.)
IV. Preferences
A. A learned disposition to choose one object, activity, or idea as opposed to another object,
activity, or idea
B. Two targets are involved since preferences involve a choice between two alternatives
C. Preferences can best be thought of as relative in nature, that is, more, less, better, worse,
etc.)
1. Preferences can involve attitudes (e.g., more favorable than…), interests (e.g., less
interest in…), or values (e.g., more valuable than…)
D. Preferences are generally considered an affective characteristic or low intensity
V. Academic self-esteem
-6-
A. A person's perception of himself as a learner in an academic setting
B. The target is the person himself
C. Academic self-esteem can be negative or positive
1.
Degrees of feelings indicate the intensity of academic self-esteem
D. Academic self-esteem is generally thought to range from low to high intensity depending on
the relationship of the perception of self to the entire spectrum of other perceptions and
beliefs the person might hold (e.g., values, interests, abilities, etc.)
VI. Locus of control
A. The extent to which individuals tend to accept responsibility for their own behavior, the
consequences of their behavior, or both
B. The target is either the person or any activity that follows the behavior
C. Locus of control is considered internal (i.e., believing one's self is responsible) or external
(i.e., believing others are responsible)
1. The degree of self responsibility indicate the intensity of a person's locus of control
D. Locus of control as an affective characteristic is generally thought to of moderately high
intensity
VII. Anxiety
A. The experience of tension that results from real or imaginary threats to one's security
B. The target is any real or imaginary threat to one's security
C. Anxiety can be thought of as relaxed or tense
1. The degree of tension indicates the intensity of anxiety
D. Anxiety as an affective characteristic is generally thought to be of high intensity
VIII.
Specific Affective Characteristics Ordered along a Continuum of Direction and Intensity with
Common Targets Identified
“Objects”
← Unfavorable
Favorable →
Attitudes
“Activities”
← Disinterested
Interested →
Interest
“Ideas”
← Unimportant
Important →
Values
“Objects or activities”
← Target A
Target B →
Preference
“Self in Academic Setting”
← Negative
Positive →
Academic Self-Esteem
← Deny Responsibility
“Behavior, Results,
Consequences”
-7-
Accept Responsibility →
Locus of Control
“Real or Perceived Threat”
← Tense
Relaxed →
Anxiety
← Can’t Do
“Tasks or subjects”
Can Do →
Self-Efficacy
“Education”
← No More
More →
Aspirations
“Real or perceived threat”
← Relaxed
Tense →
Anxiety
-8-
Appendix B
Steps in the Development of a Likert Scale (Anderson, 1981; Anderson and Bourke, 2000)
There are nine steps in the development of a Likert Scale that, if followed, ensure the development of a
sound
Table B.1
Steps in the Development of a Likert Scale
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Write or select statements that are clearly either favorable or unfavorable with respect to the
underlying affective characteristic.
Have several judges react to the statements. These judges should examine each statement
and classify it as positive, negative, or neutral.
Eliminate those statements that are not unanimously classified as positive or negative.
Decide on the number of alternative choices to be offered for each statement.
Prepare the instrument, including directions. The directions should indicate that the
respondents should respond by marking how they feel about each statement. The use of a
particular response scale is dependent on the object of the attitudes and the underlying
continuum on which responses are positioned. .
Administer the scale to a sample of the audience for whom the instrument is intended.
Compute the following item statistics: the mean and standard deviation for each item and the
total score, and the correlation between each statement response and the total scale score.
Examine these statistics to reflect on the manner in which all items are functioning.
Eliminate those statements for which the correlation with the total scale score is not
statistically significant.
Calculate Cronbach’s alpha
-9-