5 point Likert scales

Another way of measuring safety culture is simply to ask people through the use of strucmred surveys. Such surveys typically ask participants to answer a series of questions on a 5-point Likert scale ... 

The second location parameter, discriminates between those people who Disagree and those who Neither Agree/Disagree . Estimates for ranged from -3.9 to -1.3 for items with slope parameters above 1.35. These results imply that even people who are about 3 standard deviations below the mean on the construct of patient safety culture are likely to respond at least Neither Agree/Disagree on a 5-point Likert scale. For the Number of Events Reported the b parameter was -0.8 (almost 1 standard deviation below the mean on patient safety culture) indicating that at this point respondents were likely to report at least three to five incidents (option 2 in the Likert-type scale). 

Correspondence is measured using 5-point Likert scales with answer categories ranging from I completely agree to I completely disagree . The following question statements are included ... 

And the implementation of the following elements which were asked on a 5-point Likert scale (not at all - very much) ... 

The practice exam instrument used in our study utihzes 50 multiple choice items, including 6 items specifically keyed to materials science and/or nanoscience. After each exam item, a mental effort item was inserted into the exam format that asked students to introspect on the degree of menial effort expended on the previous question answered (Figure 1). We used a 5-point Likert scale consistent with the nttmber of available multiple choice options foimd on a typical scantron answer key. 

The only aspect of the MCQ with which participants might be unfamiliar is the 7-point Likert scale that is used to record responses to each statement of the MCQ. For this reason, it is important that all participants be given standard instructions before the study begins (see Note 2). Table 1 presents the 12-item MCQ its scoring is discussed in Note 3. 

The data come from responses to question 2 (Fits ME), after the ratings have been converted from the original seven-point Likert scale to a binary scale. The numbers in the body of the table show the additive conditional probabihty of a response rating the vignette 6-7, either in the absence of elements (additive constant), or when an element is introduced into a vignette. 

The reported studies used selected scales from the same test instruments on situational interest (see Table 2). Items were mainly retrieved from a study on out-of-school learning environments (Engeln, 2004). All smdies used two scales with items on a four-point Likert scale asking for smdent simational interest in the task (After I had read the task, I was very interested in the topic) and the activity (Doing the activity was great fun). Situational interest in the task was additionally subdivided into items related to a value- or emotion-oriented valence (see Table 2). Factor analysis was performed in order to ensure construct validity. 

The extent to which employees were embedded into user communities was measured using Chiu et al. s (2006] scale to measure social interaction between members in communities. The construct was measured reflectively on a 7-point Likert scale and included four items. Respondents were familiarized with the relevant definition of gaming community ll. 

I measured customer orientation with the short form of the sales orientation/customer orientation-scale, proposed by Thomas et al. (2001). The customer orientation scale included five reflective items, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. In this case I aimed to measure customer orientation as an attitude or trait, in order to keep the level of analysis similar to the other endogenous constructs. The differentiation between customer orientation attitude and customer orientation behavior has been established by Stock and Hoyer (2005), who And customer orientation behavior to be a consequence of customer orientation attitude. The demarcation between attitude and behavior is not fully accounted for in Thomas et al. s (2001) measure of customer orientation, as three of the items could also reAect behavior. Yet 1 decided to use this measure due to its good psychometric properties (Periatt et al. 2004). Due to the focus of the study 1 will interpret the outcome as attitude rather than behavior. 

To measure opinion leadership, an adaption of Flynn et al. s [1996] original six item scale was used. This scale has been used in the field of user Innovation (Kratzer and Lettl 2009 Schreier et al. 2007] before. Two of the items are negatively worded and reverse-coded in the original scale. Like with domain-specific innovativeness and for the same reasons, these indicators were excluded. This left four items to the construct, which were measured reflectively on a 7-point Likert scale. 

One objective of this study was to determine what, if any, dififerences existed between faculty and practitioners opinions concerning the importance of certain subjects in foundation engineering. To accomplish this, respondents to both surveys were asked to rate the importance of several subjects potentially related to foundation engineering. The respondents were asked to rate the importance on a four point Likert scale (not very important, somewhat important, important, very important). In the following analyses the importance is reported as the percentage of respondents indicating a given topic was important or very important. 

Questionnaires were prepared and were divided into two large blocks of questions (1) course organisation and implementation (2) functioning of the teams during the projects. For most of the questions, a five-point Likert scale was used. 

The attitude model mostly consisted of seven point-Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree (scale = -3) to strongly agree (scale = +3) to evaluate farmers attitude towards contracts as well as the level of trust and commitment and their switching behaviour. 

Wealth Producer associations have an asymmetric distribution of the quality of their associated production fields. This ranges from all high quality fields to all low quahty fields. This is measured in percentage of high quality and medium quality fields. The amount of money is different for distinct roles of the participants. Thus, wealth differences are visible. Furthermore wealth is a self-perception of the real-life situation of the participant that he brings into the game. This is measured with the questionnaire on a ten-point Likert scale. 

Partnership The participants know each other before the game as they belong to the same real-world producer association. Some will be friends and some will like each other. These relationships they take with them into the game. Attitude towards the importance of good partnerships was measured in the questionnaire on a 10-point Likert scale. 

Subjective fatigue questionnaire Subjective fatigue was assessed using the Samn-Perelli fatigue scale. The Samn-Perelli is a seven-point Likert scale with 1 = Fully alert, wide awake 2 = Very lively, responsive, but not at peak 3 = Okay, somewhat fresh 4 = A little tired, less than fresh 5 = Moderately tired, let down 6 = Extremely tired, very difficult to concentrate 7 = Completely exhausted, unable to function effectively . The dependent measure derived from the Samn-Perelli fatigue scale was subjective fatigue. 

Attitudes towards stress and fatigue Attitudes towards stress and fatigue were measured using the Safety Attitudes Questioimaire operating room Version (SAQOR), containing 10 statements pertaining specifically to stress and fatigue, four of which have been validated (Sexton et al., undated). Participants read each statement and rated it on a five-point Likert scale. 

---