SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 3

How many grades of response categories does the commitment to the profession of medicine scale provide the most information?

Murat Tekin(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-6841-3045
Çetin Toraman(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5319-0731
Ayşen Melek Aytuğ Koşan(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5298-2032
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-09-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that the eigenvalue increased from 4-point to 7-point.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the present study, we examined the psychometric properties of the data obtained from the Commitment to Profession of Medicine Scale (CPMS) with 4-point, 5-point, 6-point, and 7-point response sets based on Item Response Theory (IRT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 2150 medical students from 16 different universities participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that the eigenvalue increased from 4-point to 7-point.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Likert scale · Response set · Item response theory

Abstract

In the present study, we examined the psychometric properties of the data obtained from the Commitment to Profession of Medicine Scale (CPMS) with 4-point, 5-point, 6-point, and 7-point response sets based on Item Response Theory (IRT). A total of 2150 medical students from 16 different universities participated in the study. The participants were divided into four groups consisting of 560, 544, 502, and 544 medical students. The first group (n=560) was assigned four-point, the second group (n=544) five-point, the third group (n=502) six-point, and the fourth group (n=544) seven-point Likert forms. We used R statistical software to analyze the data. The results of item calibrations conducted with the Graded Response Model (GRM) were analyzed. The results show that the eigenvalue increased from 4-point to 7-point. Similarly, the explained variance percentage and the scale's reliability increased gradually from 4-point to 7-point. The explained variance, reliability level, and eigenvalue were very close in the 5-point and 6-point forms.

Özet

In the present study, we examined the psychometric properties of the data obtained from the Commitment to Profession of Medicine Scale (CPMS) with 4-point, 5-point, 6-point, and 7-point response sets based on Item Response Theory (IRT). A total of 2150 medical students from 16 different universities participated in the study. The participants were divided into four groups consisting of 560, 544, 502, and 544 medical students. The first group (n=560) was assigned four-point, the second group (n=544) five-point, the third group (n=502) six-point, and the fourth group (n=544) seven-point Likert forms. We used R statistical software to analyze the data. The results of item calibrations conducted with the Graded Response Model (GRM) were analyzed. The results show that the eigenvalue increased from 4-point to 7-point. Similarly, the explained variance percentage and the scale's reliability increased gradually from 4-point to 7-point. The explained variance, reliability level, and eigenvalue were very close in the 5-point and 6-point forms.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekin, M., Toraman, Ç., Koşan, A. M. A. (2024). How many grades of response categories does the commitment to the profession of medicine scale provide the most information?. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 11 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1400157

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Adelson, J.L., & McCoach, D.B. (2010). Measuring the mathematical attitudes of elementary students: The effects of a 4-point or 5-point Likert-Type scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(5) 796-807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410366694
  2. Aiken, L.R. (1983). Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 397-401.
  3. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
  4. Aybek, E.C., & Toraman, C. (2022). How many response categories are sufficient for Likert type scales? An empirical study based on the Item Response Theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 534 547. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132931
  5. Aytug Kosan, A.M., & Toraman, C. (2020). Development and application of the commitment to profession of medicine scale using classical test theory and item response theory. Croatian Medical Journal, 61(5), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2020.61.391
  6. Bora, B. (2013). A study on the applicability of the likert type scales in marketing. Doctoral Thesis. Sakarya University. Sakarya.
  7. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen K., Long J. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). SAGE.
  8. Chalmers, R.P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1 29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  9. Champney, H., & Marshall, H. (1939). Optimal refinement of the rating scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 323-331.
  10. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169401800302
  11. Dawes, J. (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), 61-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106
  12. DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development, theory and applications. SAGE Publications.
  13. Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G.A., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  14. Flannery, W.P., Reise, S.P., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). An item response theory analysis of the general and academic scales of the self-description questionnarie II. Research in Personality, 29(2), 168-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1010
  15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  16. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  17. Hambleton, R.K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological test: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244.
  18. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  19. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1217‐1218
  20. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D.K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology (BJAST), 7(4), 396 403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
  21. Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031
  22. Leung, S.O. (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
  23. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychology, 22(140), 55.
  24. Lord, F.M. (1954). Chapter II: Scaling. Review of Educational Research, 24(5), 375-392. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543024005375
  25. Mariano, L.T., Phillips, A., Estes, K., & Kilburn, R. (2024). Should survey Likert Scales include neutral responce categories? Evidence from a randomized school climate survey. Working Paper. Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WRA3100/WRA3135-2/RAND_WRA3135-2.pdf
  26. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv in Health Sci Educ 15, 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
  27. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  28. Preston, C.C., & Colman, A.M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 104, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5
  29. Price, L.R. (2017). Psychometric methods, theory into practice. The Guilford Press
  30. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  31. Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.1.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
  32. Samejima, F. (2005). Graded response model in encyclopedia of social measurement, edit. Kimberly Kempf-Leonard (pp: 145-153). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00451-5
  33. Smits, N., Öğreden, O., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Terwee, C.B., & Chalmers, R.P. (2020). A study of alternative approaches to non-normal latent trait distributions in item response theory models used for health outcome measurement. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29(4), 1030-1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280220907625
  34. Sodano, S.M., Tracey, T.J.G., & Hafkenscheid, A. (2014) A brief Dutch language ımpact message ınventory-circumplex (IMI-C Short) using non-parametric item response theory. Psychotherapy Research, 24(5), 616 628. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.847984
  35. Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680
  36. Thomas, H. (1982). IQ interval scales, and normal distributions. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 198-202
  37. Torgerson, W.S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. John Willey & Sons, Inc.
  38. Warner, R.M. (2013). Applied statistics, from bivariate through multivariate tecniques. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  39. Wakita, T., Ueshima, N., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Psychological distance between categories in the Likert scale: Comparing different numbers of options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411431162
  40. Wong, C.-S., Chuen, K.-C., & Fung, M.-Y. (1993). Differences between odd and even number of response scales: Some empirical evidence. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 35, 75-86.
  41. Wu, H., & Leung, S.O. (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
  42. Yen, W.M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3),187 213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x
  43. Yen, W.M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125-145.