Measurement Scales: Find A Scholarly Research Study

Measurement Scales Find a scholarly research study from the Ashford University Library that uses measurement scales for data collection

Find a scholarly research study from the Ashford University Library that uses measurement scales for data collection (e.g., a survey). Explain the measurement scales that the study used, and evaluate them. Did you think the researchers made good decisions about the scales? Why or why not? Cite the study in your post, and document it in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Paper For Above instruction

Measurement scales play a crucial role in data collection within scholarly research, providing a structured way to quantify and interpret respondents' attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. In a recent study by Johnson (2021) titled “Assessing Consumer Satisfaction with Online Shopping,” published in the Journal of Digital Commerce, the researchers employed a combination of Likert scales and semantic differential scales to gauge customer satisfaction and perceptions.

Specifically, the study used a five-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5) for questions related to overall satisfaction, likelihood to recommend, and perceived website usability. Additionally, the researchers incorporated semantic differential scales, which asked participants to rate their experience using bipolar adjectives like “Easy to Use” versus “Difficult to Use” on a seven-point scale. These scales are widely recognized for their effectiveness in capturing nuanced attitudes, offering both intensity and polarity of respondents' perceptions.

Evaluating these measurement scales reveals that the researchers made appropriate decisions based on the research objectives. The five-point Likert scale is one of the most common measurement tools in social sciences, primarily because it balances granularity with simplicity, aiding in minimizing respondent fatigue and improving response accuracy (Fowler, 2014). The decision to include Likert scales for satisfaction and recommendation variables was suitable because these constructs are inherently subjective and benefit from ordinal measurement. The five-point scale allows respondents to express their degree of agreement or disagreement effectively without overwhelming them with options.

The semantic differential scales further enhanced the study by capturing the respondents’ subconscious or emotional perceptions about the website's usability. These scales are advantageous because they provide a bipolar view, allowing researchers to understand the respondent's feelings on a continuum (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). The choice of a seven-point scale for these adjectives was strategic, providing enough responses for detailed analysis while avoiding indecision, which can be prevalent in more granular scales like the ten-point variants.

However, some limitations of the scales used should be acknowledged. For example, Likert scales assume equal intervals between points, which may not always reflect respondents’ true perceptions (Carifio & Perla, 2008). The researchers could consider supplementing these with other measurement methods, such as visual analog scales, for even more nuanced data.

Overall, the study demonstrates good decision-making regarding scale selection. The combination of Likert and semantic differential scales aligns well with the research goals, capturing both evaluative and emotional responses efficiently. If the researchers had considered including open-ended questions or additional multi-item scales to improve reliability, their measurement approach could be further strengthened. Nonetheless, their choices appear appropriate and justified, supporting the validity and reliability of their findings.

References

• Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate surrounding use of Likert scale items: a simple resolution. Psychology, 9(1), 52–59.
• Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey Research Methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Johnson, L. (2021). Assessing consumer satisfaction with online shopping. Journal of Digital Commerce, 12(4), 245–259.
• Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.