This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]

On: 17 March 2013, At: 09:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Social Service Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20

A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and

Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales
a
Shing-On Leung
a
University of Macau, Macau, China
Version of record first published: 16 May 2011.

To cite this article: Shing-On Leung (2011): A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point
Likert Scales, Journal of Social Service Research, 37:4, 412-421

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Social Service Research, 37:412421, 2011
Copyright
c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0148-8376 print / 1540-7314 online
DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.580697

A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in

4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales
Shing-On Leung

ABSTRACT. The Likert scale is very popular, but the question as to the number of scale points is
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013

still controversial. This article studies the differences among 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales
with a sample of 1,217 students in Macau, using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale as the measuring
instrument. There is no major difference in internal structure in terms of means, standard deviations,
itemitem correlations, itemtotal correlations, Cronbachs alpha, or factor loadings. Findings indicate
that having more scale points seems to reduce skewness, and the 11-point scale, ranging from 0 to
10, has the smallest kurtosis and is closest to normal. Only the 6- and 11-point scales follow normal
distributions from KolmogorovSmirnov and ShapiroWilk statistics. Results on predictive validity
are inconclusive. This article discusses future applications and suggests the use of an 11-point scale as
it increases sensitivity and is closer to interval level of scaling and normality. Recommendations for
social workers and teachers are made to better assist when using self-reported measurement scales.

KEYWORDS. Likert scale, interval scale, normality, reliability

BACKGROUND between ends might detract from the interval na-

The Likert (1932) scale is one of the most
widely used instruments for measuring opinion,
preference, and attitude. It consists of a number
of items with around 4 to 7 points or categories
each. Analysis can be based on individual items
or a summation of items forming a scale. Some
distinguish a Likert item from a Likert-type item,
the former having bivalent and symmetrical la-
bels about a middle or neutral point (Kislenko
& Grevholm, 2008). Though the Likert scale re-
mains popular, there are several issues that need
to be examined. First, all points can be labeled,
but sometimes only the endpoints may be iden-
tified. Originally, Likert (1932) labeled each op-
tion to be chosen, but Cummins and Gullone
(2000) suggested that the naming of categories
ture and hence that only end-defined labels were
needed. Wyatt and Meyers (1987) used four dif-
ferently labeled 5-point scales and found that
these might differ in variability but not in means
or reliability, with the latter dependent on item
item correlations, which do not themselves de-
pend on variance. They also found that more
absolute endpoints might result in more frequen-
cies concentrated in the middle, and vice versa,
and suggested the use of less absolute labels.
Different studies may choose to use different la-
bels, with a blank included as one of the options.
In this article, only end-defined endpoints are
used.
Second, there is no agreement on the number
of scale points to be used. Most studies use 4
to 7 points, while some may be extended to 10

Shing-On Leung, Professor, University of Macau, Macau, China.

Address correspondence to: Shing-On Leung, Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau,
China (E-mail: soleung@umac.mo).
412
 Comparison of 4-, 5-, 6-, & 11-Point Likert Scales
or 11. Cummins and Gullone (2000) produced
a review of this issue and suggested that ex-
panding beyond 5 or 7 points might increase the
sensitivity without affecting reliability. Borgers,
Sikkel, and Hox (2004) suggested the use of 4
points as an optimum after considering a number
of options, the neutral point, and reliability. L.
Chang (1994) used a model approach to evalu-
ate 4- and 6-point scales after fitting empirical
data and concluded that the scale points had no
effect on criterion-related validity. The final de-
cision might depend more on empirical settings.
Allen and Seaman (2007) proposed that 7 points
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013
could be shown to reach the upper limits of re-
liability. There is no common agreement on this
issue, but Likert (1932) and others recommended
that we use the scale as widely as possible, for
we could always collapse points into condensed
categories, but not vice versa (Allen & Seaman,
2007). And when M. L. M. Chang (2010) ex-
tended Somech and Rons (2007) organizational
citizenship behavior scale from 7 to 11 points,
very significant results were found. This pro-
vides support for using an 11-point scale in this
article and to compare it to the internal structure
of 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales.
Third is the discussion as to whether there
should be a middle or neutral point and whether
this neutral point should be used. Garland (1991)
showed that social desirability bias may be re-
duced by removing it and that retaining it might
distort the results. But removing it also intro-
duces a forced choice in the scale (Allen &
Seaman, 2007), as a respondent might be forced
to declare a stand instead of remaining neutral,
which in some political and sensitive cases may
not be desirable. For the most part, use or nonuse
could constitute a never-ending debate.
Fourth, there is the long-standing and contro-
versial question of whether the Likert scale can
be used numericallytechnically, whether it is a
matter of ordinal or interval-scale measurement.
If we treat it as interval-scale data, analysis will
be more powerful and easier to interpret, but this
type of usage may cause the findings to be misled
or misrepresented (Allen & Seaman, 2007). For
example, a mean of 3 on a 5-point scale labeled
from 1 to 5 may imply 20% evenly distributed
over 5 points, although this creates an extreme
U-shape distribution with 50% at the two ex-
413
tremes resulting in the same value. The two ob-
viously carry different meanings (Kislenko &
Grevholm, 2008). Clason and Dormody (1994)
summarized 95 articles in the Journal of Agri-
cultural Education and found that, respectively,
54%, 32%, and 13% of these articles used de-
scriptive, parametric, and nonparametrics statis-
tics. There were thus 2.5 (= 32/13) times as
many studies treating Likert scales as continuous
scales than as ordinal-discrete scales. Goldstein
and Hersen (1984) thought the interval assump-
tion seemed unlikely, and Hart (1996) stated that
the respondents did not use a linear interval scale.
Parker, McDaniel, and Crumpton-Young (2002)
compared a 5-point Likert scale with a visual
analogue scale with a linguistic anchor by us-
ing t-tests and analysis of variance, and no sig-
nificant differences were found. These results
suggested the use of the parametric procedure
for Likert scales. Even though the interval na-
ture of individual items is rejected, the summed
scale score may still be of the interval type, for
the sum may be insensitive to the violation of
interval assumption at item level. Kislenko and
Grevholm (2008) referred to these as supporters
of measurement (assuming ordinal nature at item
level), and supporters of statistics (assuming in-
terval nature at summed-scale level). However,
most studies insist that the set of items should
first have passed some tests of internal consis-
tency, such as Cronbachs alpha or factor analy-
sis (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Therefore, the pur-
pose of this article is to evaluate and compare the
reliability and factor analysis of different Likert
point scales.
Fifth, beyond interval scales, the next ques-
tion is whether normal distribution assumptions
hold, as this is the basis for many parametric
procedures such as t-tests, factor analysis, and
other related tests. Both Clason and Dormody
(1994) and Wu (2007) found it hard to see how
normality in the Likert scale held. Wu (2007)
proposed using Snells transformation to make
it closer to normality, but after doing so, the nor-
mality was still rejected. Therefore, this article
seeks to test the normality assumption for these
different Likert point scales.
When using the Likert scale, there is no com-
mon agreement on the number of points to be
used, and normality assumptions remain the
 414 S.-O. Leung

subject to debate. Therefore, the purpose of this
article is to compare 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Lik-
ert scales in terms of internal structure, normal-
ity, and predictive validity. The authors will also
discuss the advantages of using an 11-point scale
ranging from 0 to 10 in the Discussion section.
METHODS
Instrument
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
was selected as the measuring scale of choice
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013
needed. Teachers in the schools were responsi-
ble for distributing and returning the question-
naire to the researchers. Because it was difficult
to distribute four versions of the scale evenly at
one time, we divided the process into two stages.
First, the researchers distributed 5- and 11-point
questionnaires alternately so that the first, third,
fifth, etc., students seated in classrooms received
the 5-point questionnaire; second, fourth, sixth,
etc., students seated in classrooms received the
11-point questionnaire. This resulted in two sub-
samples with similar characteristics (N = 271
and 272, for 5- and 11-points, respectively). In

the second stage, we distribute 4-, 5-, and 6-

because it is widely used and has been trans-
point questionnaires in a similar way, resulting in
lated into many different languages. This study
three subsamples of similar characteristics and
used a Chinese version provided by Leung and
sizes (N = 231, 223, and 220, for 4, 5, and 6
Wong (2008) because in the sample, the respon-
points respectively). The final sample consisted
dents were all local Chinese in Macau. In using
of 1,217 students in Macau. The two subsamples
this translated version of the scale, however, one
of 5-point scales were found to have very similar
problem was found. A problem was noted in
characteristics, and hence, the two samples were
the translating of Item 8, which reads: I wish I
combined into one. Finally, there were four sam-
could have more respect to myself. Leung and
ples for the 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point scales from
Wong (2008) have used four different Chinese
the same sampling frame and of a similar nature
versions of Item 8 to alleviate the problem, but
for purposes of comparison.
none have proven to be satisfactory in terms of
itemitem correlations, itemtotal correlations,
reliabilities, and factor analysis. We will there-
fore include both full-length (10-item) and 9- RESULTS
item scales, the latter having Item 8 excluded.
As the purpose is to compare 4-, 5-, 6-, and Internal Structure
11-point scales, the same questionnaire was de-
Basic psychometric properties of the 10-item
signed in each case, different only in the num-
RSES are reported in Table 1.
ber of scale points. Because we include an 11-
In Table 1, the means and standard deviations
point scale and it is very difficult to find suit-
(SD) are transformed to a range of 0 to 100 re-
able labels for 11 points, only end-defined labels
gardless of any point scales. The means are the
are used on all scales for comparative purposes,
same, 55 (rounding to the nearest integer), and
consistent with the view that adding labels in
the SDs only differ by 1 (either 17 or 18). The
the middle may distract from the interval nature
skewness and kurtosis will be reported later as
(Cummins & Gullone, 2000); further, it is im-
they are related to normality.
possible to have the same labels for all scales.
As for itemitem correlations, the minima for
Questionnaires are designed so that they can be
all point scales are associated with Item 8, the
self-administered by respondents.
one Leung and Wong (2008) reported problems
Participants with. The Item pair 2 and 6 has maximum corre-
lations across all point scales, and the averages
Our sample consisted of secondary-school were similar.
students, Grades 7 to 12 (i.e., 1318 years of For itemtotal correlations, all minima are
age) in Macau. Students were able to read and also associated with Item 8. The maxima are
understand the questions presented to them with- associated with Items 2 and 6 for the 10- and
out difficulty and no further clarification was 4-point scales, respectively, and Item 9 for the
 Comparison of 4-, 5-, 6-, & 11-Point Likert Scales 415

TABLE 1. Basic Psychometric Properties of the 10-Item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale of the 4-,
5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales

4-point 5-point 6-point 11-point

Mean 55 55 55 55
SD 18 18 17 17
Itemitem corr (min) r (8,10) = .13 r (4,8) = .19 r (8,10) = .21 r (7,8) = .08
Itemitem corr (max) r (2,6) = .65 r (2,6) = .69 r (2,6) = .62 r (2,6) = .63
Itemitem corr (average) .25 .29 .24 .28
Itemtotal corr (min) r (T,8) = .23 r (T,8) = .08 r (T,8) = .22 r(T,8) = .24
Itemtotal corr (max) r (T,6) = .75 r (T,9) = .77 r (T,9) = .71 r (T,2) = .73
Itemtotal corr (average) .57 .60 .56 .59
Cronbachs alpha .78 .81 .76 .80
Eigenvalue (first) 3.6 (36%) 4.0 (41%) 3.3 (34%) 3.8 (38%)
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013

Eigenvalue (second) 1.5 (50%) 1.7 (58%) 1.8 (52%) 1.5 (54%)

5- and 6-point scales. The maximum itemtotal
correlations range from .71 to .77 and show lit-
tle variation. The averages are also similar and
range from .56 to .60. The Cronbachs alpha reli-
ability of internal consistency for all point scales
is very similar and ranges from .78 to .81. These
values can justify RSES as an interval scale.
To examine the internal structure further, we
conduct exploratory factor analysis with the Sta-
tistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
as default. The extraction and rotation methods
are principal component analysis and varimax
respectively. The 5-point scale has the highest
eigenvalue for both the first and second factor
and also the highest cumulative percentages of
variations explained. The first eigenvalue ranges
from 3.3 to 4.0, and the corresponding percent-
ages range from 34% to 41%. For the second
factor, the corresponding figures range from 1.5
to 1.8 and 50% to 58%.
The above results show that all point scales
have very similar basic psychometric proper-
ties in terms of means, SDs, itemitem corre-
lations, itemtotal correlations, reliabilities, and
exploratory factor analysis. As Item 8 may affect
the results, we remove it and report the 9-item
results in Table 2.
When Item 8 is removed, the mean, 57, is the
same for all scales, and the SDs are also similar
(18 to 20). The minimum itemitem correlations
are no longer associated with Item 8. Item 4
attaches with the minimum for 5-, 6-, and 11-
point scales. For the maximum, the results are
the same as for the 10-item results, because it is

TABLE 2. Basic Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale of the 4-,
5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales

4-point 5-point 6-point 11-point

Mean 57 57 57 57
SD 19 20 18 18
Itemitem corr (min) r (3,9) = .13 r (4,6) = .16 r (4,5) = .09 r (4,6) = .02
Itemitem corr (max) r (2,6) = .65 r (2,6) = .69 r (2,6) = .62 r (2,6) = .63
Itemitem corr (average) .31 .38 .30 .35
Itemtotal corr (min) r (T,4) = .51 r (T,4) = .59 r (T,10) = .53 r (T,4) = .52
Itemtotal corr (max) r (T,6) = .75 r (T,9) = .76 r (T,9) = .71 r (T,2) = .73
Itemtotal corr (average) .62 .67 .61 .64
Cronbachs alpha .81 .85 .79 .83
Eigenvalue (first) 3.5 (39%) 4.1 (45%) 3.3 (37%) 3.8 (43%)
Eigenvalue (second) 1.3 (54%) 1.6 (63%) 1.6 (55%) 1.4 (59%)
 416 S.-O. Leung

not related to Item 8. The averages range from
.30 to .38.
The minima of itemtotal correlation are also
not associated with Item 8 and appear in Item
4 for the 4-, 5-, and 11-point scales, and Item
10 for the 6-point scale. The maxima appear in
Item 6 for the 4-point scale, Item 9 for the 5-
and 6-point scales, and Item 2 for the 10-point
scale. The averages of itemtotal correlations
vary little (from .62 to .67) but are higher than
the 10-item results.
The Cronbachs alphas ranged from .79 to .85,
higher than the 10-item results. In factor analysis
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013
they are negative statements. Item 8 is loaded
differently across different scales. In its English
version, Item 8 is a negative statement. As in-
dicated earlier, there is no appropriate Chinese
version to be found (Leung & Wong, 2008), and
results for this item cannot therefore be counted.
As a result, the patterns of factor loadings, and
hence the internal structure, are largely the same
across different scales.
The above results indicate that the internal
structure as reflected by basic psychometric
properties and factor loadings is very similar in
different point scales. High reliabilities suggest

with the same default settings, the results were
similar to the 10-item results. The 5-point scale
also has the highest eigenvalues (from 3.3 to
4.1) and percentages of variations (from 37% to
45%). The 9-item results are very similar to the
10-item ones, and hence from now on, we only
report results based on 10 items.
Another indication of internal structure is fac-
tor loadings from the factor analysis as con-
ducted earlier. We use the minimum factor
saliency criterion of |.40| for interpretations:
Items were allocated to factors if loadings ex-
ceeded |.40|. Factor loadings are reported in
Table 3.
With the criterion, Items 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9 are
loaded in the second component in all scales, and
they are positive statements. Items 2, 5, 6, and
10 are also loaded in the first for all scales, and
that RSES is interval scale data. However, can
RSES be considered as normally distributed?
Normality
We use three steps to investigate the nor-
mality of RSES: i) skewness and kurtosis, ii)
KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) and ShapiroWilk
(SW) tests for normality, and iii) normal QQ
plot. Table 4 reports the skewness and kurtosis.
The first part of Table 4 reports skewness and
kurtosis for 10 items individually on all scales.
The second part reports the same figures for
RSES and two single items: single-item self-
esteem (SISE; Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski,
2001) and subjective social economic scale (Le-
ung, 2009). The inclusion of these two items is
to give additional information on whether having

TABLE 3. Factor Loadings of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale of the 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert
Scales

First component Second component

4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt 4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt

1+ .418 .362 .142 .322 .509 .653 .659 .663

2 .767 .845 .728 .739 .142 .128 .220 .310
3+ .170 .215 .259 .151 .639 .707 .643 .715
4+ .159 .091 .029 .077 .547 .805 .758 .766
5 .640 .708 .757 .568 .286 .166 .090 .303
6 .812 .852 .808 .862 .232 .105 .138 .076
7+ .107 .189 .030 .138 .711 .731 .744 .725
8 .495 .248 .467 .440 .403 .475 .324 .262
9 .716 .833 .694 .701 .234 .202 .307 .356
10+ .131 .325 .111 .264 .712 .608 .585 .636

Note. Those items with a + sign are positively worded items. Those without are negative. Those loadings with absolute values higher than
|.40| are in bold and italic.
 Comparison of 4-, 5-, 6-, & 11-Point Likert Scales 417

TABLE 4. Skewness and Kurtosis of 10 Items in RSES, SISE, and SSES of 4-, 5-, 6-, and
11-Point Likert Scales

Skewness Kurtosis

Item 4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt 4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt

1 0.29 0.22 0.43 0.12 0.39 0.20 0.06 0.02

2 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.13 1.13 1.09 1.13 1.01
3 0.33 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.46 0.28 0.55 0.19
4 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.61 0.46 0.42 0.27
5 0.27 0.30 0.19 0.23 0.93 0.90 1.12 0.76
6 0.19 0.31 0.15 0.14 1.01 0.98 1.08 1.02
7 0.34 0.15 0.24 0.33 0.56 0.55 0.67 0.31
8 0.31 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.90 0.67 0.85 0.55
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013

9 0.72 0.62 0.57 0.47 0.64 0.66 0.83 0.94

10 0.42 0.35 0.55 0.42 0.70 0.59 0.38 0.61
RSES 0.29 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.04
SISE 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.28 0.81 0.40 0.67 0.32
SSES 0.29 0.19 0.39 0.06 1.22 1.38 1.36 0.97

Note. Those values closest to 0 are in bold and italic. RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SISE = single-item self-esteem; SSES =
subjective socioeconomic status.

more points in a Likert scale produces a closer
approach to normality for some single-item mea-
sures.
Normal variates have zero skewness and kur-
tosis and smaller absolute values, implying a
closer approach to normality. The smallest ab-
solute values (SAV) across all scales are in bold
and italic in Table 4. As for skewness, the 11-
point scale has SAV for five items of RSES.
Items 4 and 5 have SAV with the 6-point scale,
and Items 7, 8, and 10 have SAV with the 5-
point scale. Lack of any neutral point in the 4-
and 6-point scales may result in more skewness.
Because all negative statements are reversed in
coding, all items with more positive values will
imply higher self-esteem. Most items are nega-
tively skewed, suggesting that more students rate
their self-esteem higher. As self-esteem may be,
by its nature, negatively skewed among Chinese
people, another way of proceeding is to look at
the kurtosis.
In respect of kurtosis, the 11-point scale has
SAV for almost all items, the exceptions being
Items 6, 9, and 10. But for Items 6 and 10 on the
11-point scale, values are not far from the min-
imum (1.02 vs. 1.01 for Item 6, and 0.61
vs. 0.59 for Item 10). For the summated
RSES, SISE, and subjective socioeconomic sta-
tus (SSES), the 11-point scale has SAV, indicat-
ing the closest approach to normality. Most im-
portantly, the very small kurtosis value of 0.04
for RSES implies a very close approach to nor-
mality, and this is supported by normality tests.
The KS and SW tests are used to conduct
formal statistical assessment of normality. The
KS test is a nonparametric test of distribution to
compare with a reference distribution, which is
normal in this case; the larger the KS statistics,
the farther from normal, and vice versa. As a
nonparametric test, it is less powerful than the
parametric SW test, which is used specifically
for normal distributions; contrary to the KS test,
the higher the SW values, the closer to normality.
In the case of both tests, if significant values are
less than .05, we will reject the null hypothesis
that a normal distribution is involved. We use the
SPSS default settings for these two tests. Table
5 reports KS and SW being applied to 10 items,
RSES, SISE, and SSES.
The arrangement of Table 5 is very similar to
that of Table 4, except for KS and SW statistics
replacing skewness and kurtosis. For KS statis-
tics, the smallest for all scales is in bold and
italic, with the 11-point scale having the small-
est value for all items except Item 3. For SW
statistics, the largest value is in bold and italic,
with the 11-point scale having the largest values
for all items and the minor complication that in
 418 S.-O. Leung

TABLE 5. KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) and ShapiroWilk (SW) Statistics of 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point
Likert Scales

KS statistics SW statistics

Item 4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt 4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt

1 .28 .21 .21 .14 .86 .90 .91 .95

2 .19 .15 .14 .09 .87 .89 .91 .93
3 .27 .22 .15 .20 .86 .90 .93 .94
4 .24 .20 .18 .15 .87 .91 .93 .96
5 .22 .16 .14 .12 .87 .89 .91 .94
6 .21 .16 .13 .10 .87 .89 .91 .93
7 .25 .21 .15 .15 .87 .90 .93 .93
8 .23 .20 .14 .13 .87 .90 .91 .93
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013

9 .24 .20 .18 .16 .81 .86 .87 .89

10 .22 .18 .16 .14 .85 .89 .89 .92
RSES .09 .07 .05 .05 .980 .987 .994 .994
SISE .22 .22 .16 .15 .88 .90 .93 .94
SSES .19 .19 .17 .15 .92 .93 .94 .95

Note. For KS statistics, those values closest to 0 are in bold and italic. For SW statistics, those values closest to 1 are in bold and italic. RSES
= Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SISE = single-item self-esteem; SSES = subjective socioeconomic status.

Item 7 and RSES, the 6- and 11-point scales have more points at item level will mean more points
the same largest value. So, the 11-point scale is at scale level, and it is obvious that the 11-point
closest to normality. scale has the most points. Importantly, the 11-
Table 5 reports only the values of statistics point scale is the most closely aligned with a
without significance levels or p values. In fact, straight line and is therefore closest to normality
for all individual items, all tests show statistical among all point scales. All the results above are
significance valueshence, the null hypothesis related to internal structures, but we now move
that they come from normal is rejected. At item on to predictive validity, where external criteria
level, even though we use as many as 11 points, are present.
it is still far away. The only exception is the
summated RSES, for which significance values Predictive Validity
are reported in Table 6.
Table 6 reports the significance values in a For predictive validity, external criteria are
normality test of RSES for different point scales. needed. In this article, the areas involved are
The 4- and 5-point scales are statistically sig- socioeconomic status (SES), perceived aca-
nificant, but the 6- and 11-point scales are not, demic competence, relationship with others, and
implying that they follow a normal distribution.
Though the KS and SW tests are nonparametric
TABLE 6. KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) and
and parametric, respectively, they arrive at the
ShapiroWilk (SW) Statistics, Degree of
same conclusion.
Freedom, and Significant Values of Rosenberg
To supplement these results graphically, we Self-Esteem Scale for 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point
conduct a normal QQ plot. If the distribution is Likert Scales
normal, the plot will form a straight line, while
any degree of departure from that line will indi-
Points KS statistics df Sig SW statistics df Sig
cate a departure from normal. The QQ plot is
shown in Figure 1. 4 .090 231 .000 .980 231 .002
In Figure 1, the 4-point scale has the fewest 5 .066 493 .000 .987 493 .000
data points, and the 11-point scale has the most. 6 .051 219 .200 .994 219 .582
11 .049 272 .200 .994 272 .408
Because RSES is made up of individual items,
 Comparison of 4-, 5-, 6-, & 11-Point Likert Scales
FIGURE 1. Normal QQ Plots of 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
Likert Scales
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013
feelings toward school and family life. Corre-
lations between RSES and external criteria are
reported in Table 7, where variables used in each
area are listed in the first column.
The Table 7 results are very diverse. In SES,
the 6-point scale gives the highest correlation in
terms of income, fathers occupation, mothers
occupation, and SSES. The 4- and 5-point scales
have the highest correlations for fathers and
mothers education, respectively. SSES has a
much higher correlation than others. This im-
plies subjective perception in SES correlates
better with subjective perception in self-esteem.
In perceived academic competence, the 4-point
scale has the highest correlation for general com-
petence, but the 11-point has the highest correla-
tions in the subjects Chinese, English, and math-
ematics. In relations with parents (both mother
and father), the 11-point scale is the highest,
while the 5-point scale is the highest for relation-
ships with brothers and sisters. Both the 5- and
6-point scales have the highest correlation with
419
peers, and the 5-point scale is highest for vari-
able welcome by peers. In feelings toward school
and family life, the 4- and 5-point scales have the
highest correlations with feelings toward family
and social life, respectively. Overall, there is no
clear pattern for predictive validity, and no point
scale has dominant predictive validity over oth-
ers.
DISCUSSION
In this article, using the Chinese RSES, there
are no differences among 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-
point Likert scales in terms of mean, SD, item
item correlation, itemtotal correlation, reliabil-
ity, exploratory factor analysis, or factor loading.
However, the 6- and 11-point scales of RSES
follow a normal distribution, while the 4- and 5-
point scales do not, which suggests that the more
closely scale points approach normality, the bet-
ter. With regard to the existence of a neutral
 420 S.-O. Leung

TABLE 7. Correlations With External Variables rious. Further, if fatigue is really a factor, we
of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for 4-, 5-, 6-, might have observed some differences in our re-
and 11-Point Likert Scales sults. As that has not happened, there may in fact
be no fatigue problem.
4-pt 5-pt 6-pt 11-pt There is support for using an 11-point scale
in the literature. Cummins and Gullone (2000)
Socioeconomic status
argued that the sensitivity of most peoples per-
Income .17 .16 .19 .02
Fathers education .20 .08 .05 .01 ceptions should not be limited to five levels. The
Mothers education .06 .14 .07 .04 10- and 100-point formats are not new. Before
Fathers occupation .05 .01 .11 .00 Likert (1932), Freyd (1923) had noted that at
Mothers occupation .04 .14 .15 .05
that time, many scales were based on 10- or
Subjective SES .26 .18 .39 .27
Perceived academic competence 100-point formats. Hodge and Gillespie (2007)
General .39 .35 .29 .33 used the Phrase Completion Scale (PCS), also an
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013

Chinese .31 .31 .20 .42 11-point scale with labels at endpoints, for three
English .25 .28 .22 .31
reasons: unidimensionality, univocality, and nor-
Mathematics .28 .28 .22 .30
Relationship with mality. They pointed out that PCS performed
Father .22 .23 .15 .24 better on these three aspects and that the tradi-
Mother .22 .18 .20 .28 tional 5-point Likert scale could only capture a
Brothers/sisters .23 .30 .20 .27
portion of the underlying attitudinal continuum
Peers .17 .23 .23 .21
Welcome by peers .33 .41 .26 .29 as it only focused on moderate levels of agree-
Feelings toward ment, which might not reflect those at the ends.
School life .24 .35 .31 .32 One minor complication is whether the range
Family life .38 .31 .27 .35
should start with 0 or 1. Another is whether the
Note. The highest correlations along a row are in bold and italic. ends should be relabeled 5 and +5, or oth-
SES = socioeconomic status. erwise. The author is in line with Hodge and
Gillespie (2007) in thinking that a 0 has a bet-
point, our findings do not show any differences, ter image of the complete absence of an attribute,
as there is no major difference among all point while a 10 fully indicates its presence. Because
scales. The 5- and 11-point scales possess a neu- a 0-to-10 range is very popular and easily com-
tral point, while the 4- and 6-point scales do not. prehended by most people, we prefer to keep the
It should be noted that the effects of a neutral present numberswe recommend an 11-point
point may be diluted by neighboring categories scale, or PCS, because it increases scale sensi-
in a long scale such as an 11-point scale, and this tivity, is closer to normality, and is easily under-
is an added advantage of using a longer scale. stood.
Many researchers question whether the Lik- This article provides evidence to support the
ert scale can be considered as an interval-level use of the 11-point Likert scale, or PCS, but
scale. High reliabilities for RSES in this study more evidence is needed through future research
suggest that at the summated scale level, this is to make more conclusive findings. In terms of
indeed the case. Skewness of individual items correlations, reliabilities, and factor structures,
and RSES seems to suggest they are not normal no differences were found among different point
but that they may be related instead to the na- scales, and this may need further investigation
ture of self-esteem. As the 11-point scale has the and explanation. This study only compares the
smallest kurtosis at both item and scale level, it 11-point scale with the 4-, 5-, and 6-point scales,
is closer to normality than otherwise. However, and the comparison between the 11-point scale
there are arguments against an 11-point scale. and the 7- to 10-point scales is limited. This em-
With so many points, more effort, and hence fa- pirical study can be further extended by utilizing
tigue, may be entailed in choosing for each item. measuring instruments other than RSES and in-
But a scale from 0 to 10 is a very popular and vestigating cultural as well as other demographic
natural system, which most people become used differences such as gender and age. In addition,
to, and the problem may accordingly not be se- the author is now conducting simulations from
 Comparison of 4-, 5-, 6-, & 11-Point Likert Scales
both symmetric normal and other skewed dis-
tributions to study the effects of the number of
points in a Likert scale toward departure from
normality.
Regarding the implications toward social ser-
vice practices, frontline social workers and
teachers very often use the Likert scale to assess
students and adolescents on different psycholog-
ical or educational constructs. In addition, youth
may be asked to fill in questionnaires themselves
as part of the assessment exercises. In both cases,
either being assessed or self-reported, this article
supports the use of the 11-point scale, not only
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:00 17 March 2013
for its psychometric properties but for also its
easy comprehension.
REFERENCES
Allen, E., & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert scales and data
analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 6465.
Borgers, N., Sikkel, D., & Hox, J. (2004). Response ef-
fects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect
of number of response options, negative wording, and
neutral midpoint. Quality and Quantity, 38(1), 1733.
Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point
and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliabil-
ity and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement,
18(3), 205215.
Chang, M. L. M. (2010). A correlational study between
organizational citizenship and organizational justice
among teachers in Macao (Unpublished masters the-
sis). University of Macau, Macau, China.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data
measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 35(4), 3135.
Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should
not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective
quality-of-life measurement. In Proceedings of the Sec-
ond International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities
(pp. 7493). Kent Ridge, Singapore: National Univer-
sity of Singapore.
Freyd, M. (1923). The graphic rating scale. Journal of Ed-
ucational Psychology, 14, 83102.
421
Garland, R. (1991). The midpoint on a rating scale: Is it
desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 6670.
Goldstein, G., & Hersen, M. (1984). Handbook of psycho-
logical assessment. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Hart, M. C. (1996). Improving the discrimination of
SERVQUAL by using magnitude scaling. In G. K. Kanji
(Ed.), Total quality management in action (pp. 267
270). London, England: Chapman and Hall.
Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. F. (2007). Phrase comple-
tion scales: A better measurement approach than Lik-
ert scales? Journal of Social Service Research, 34(4),
112.
Kislenko, K., & Grevholm, B. (2008, July). The Likert
scale used in research on affectA short discussion of
terminology and appropriate analyzing methods. Paper
presented in the 11th International Congress on Mathe-
matical Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
Leung, S. O. (2009). Subjective social economic status of
adolescence in Macau. International Journal of Adoles-
cence and Youth, 15, 145153.
Leung, S. O., & Wong, P. M. (2008). Validity and reliability
of Chinese Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. New Horizons
in Education, 56(1), 6269.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of atti-
tudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 553.
Parker, P. L., McDaniel, H. S., & Crumpton-Young, L. L.
(2002). Do research participants give interval or ordi-
nal answers in response to Likert scales? Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.
1.1.19.6352&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H.
(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct val-
idation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(2), 151161.
Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational
citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of indi-
vidual and organizational characteristics. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3866.
Wu, C.-H. (2007). An empirical study on the transforma-
tion of Likert-scale data to numerical scores. Applied
Mathematical Sciences, 1(58), 28512862.
Wyatt, R. C., & Meyers, L. S. (1987). Psychometric
properties of four 5-point Likert-type response scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1),
2735.