Open Collections

A comparison of Likert and Q-sort scaling techniques in the assessment of personality

University of British Columbia

This study involved a comparison of two scaling techniques commonly used in the area of personality assessment: the Likert scale, which is a normative, free response technique, and the Q-sort, which is an ipsative, forced-choice technique. Comparisons were made in three major areas. Firstly, the internal consistencies of scales were compared across the two formats. Secondly, the distribution of participants' responses were examined in the two formats. Finally the factor structures of measures in Likert and Q-sort format were compared. Participants were 130 students (92 women and 38 men). Mean age of subjects was 19. Three measures were used: the California Q-set (CAQ), the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO), and the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS). The C A Q is a 100-item Q-sort measure derived by clinicians to capture the full range of personality traits. The NEO and IAS are empirically derived, well-validated personality scales. The NEO is a 60-item measure of the Five-Factor Model, and the IAS is a 64-ilem measure of the interpersonal domain of Dominance and Love. All three measures were administered both in Likert and Q-sort format. Participation was spread over two sessions, separated by approximately three weeks, with either Likert or Q-sort format given in each session. Results suggest several differences between the two scaling techniques. Internal consistencies were higher for Likert versions of all three measures. Distribution of responses for Likert measures departed substantially from the forced nature of the Q-sort. In terms of factor structure, a clear structure was obtained for the IAS and NEO in both Likert and Q-sort formats. A moderately clear structure was obtained for C A Q in Likert format. The structure of the C A Q in Q-sort format was found to be quite ambiguous. Across all three measures Likert solutions were found to account for a greater percentage of variance. Implications for the application of these two scaling techniques are discussed.

Thesis/Dissertation

application/pdf

2009-02-17

For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/4675

Psychology

University of British Columbia

UBCV

DSpace