The Effects of Odd or Even Number of Options on The Variance of Item Validity in Environmental Personality (Big-Five Personality)
Abstract
Validity is one of the important characteristics in any psychological measuring tool. Measurement tools in his research more generally include a variety of observations and usually include responses that aim to regulate and limit the choices available to respondents and assessments. There are many studies that have assessed how the number of response options on a scale affects validity and reliability, but fewer have discussed whether the midpoint should be included as a response option, or whether the scale is even. Regardless of where the response scale is in psychological measurements, the environmental personality (big-five personality) scale has been expanded and elaborated in various ways in previous research since the introduction of dreams. The big-five personality model is the most extensive model for measuring environmental personality. This study aims to determine whether there is a difference between the number of odd and even option scales on the validity variance of students' environmental personality (big-five personality) items, and to see which scale of the number of options is better or suitable for the environmental personality (big-five personality) instrument. The calculation data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA method. The results of this study indicate that the scale of the number of odd options (five options) and the scale of the number of even options differ significantly in the variance of the validity of the environmental personality items (big-five Personality). The mean plot results show that the odd option scale higher than the even scale. This research can be carried out for further research in using the odd scale on the environmental personality measurement tool (Big-five Personality) with the expansion being studied.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (1985). Introduction to Research In Education (third ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Azwar, S. (2016). Reliabilitas Dan Validitas Aitem. Buletin Psikologi, 3(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.22146/bpsi.13381
Baltees, P.B., Reese, H.W., & Nesselroads, J.R. (1988). Introduction to research Methods in Life span Developmental Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220–232.
Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2005). Improving performance and outcomes. In Practice Development in Health Care (Vol. 4, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1002/pdh.22
Cox, E. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives in a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407–422.
Elmes, D.G., Kantowitz, B.H., & Roedriger III, H.L. (1992). Research methods in Psychology. New York: West publishing Company.
Friday, A. S. (2004). Criterion-Related Validity of Big Five Adolescent Personality Traits. In Doctoral Dissertations University.
Friedenberg, L. (1995). Psychological Testing. Design, Analysis, and Use. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hirsh, J. B. (2014). Environmental sustainability and national personality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 233–240.
Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. Statistician, 29, 65–78.
Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2013). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.014
Lissitz, R.W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.
Nadler, J. T., Weston, R., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Stuck in the middle: The use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires. Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.994590
Naga, D. S. (2004). Ketidaktepatan Penggunaan Validitas Butir dan Koefisien Reliabilitas dalam Penelitian Pendidikan dan Psikologi. Ilmu Pendidikan, II(2).
Oaster, T. R. F. (1989). Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert- type scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 549–550.
Simms, L. J., Zelazny, K., Williams, T. F., & Bernstein, L. (2019). Does the Number of Response Options Matter? Psychometric Perspectives Using Personality Questionnaire Data. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000648
Smith, G. T. (2005). On the complexity of quantifying construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 413–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.413
Suchindran, C. M. (2014). Sample Size Sample Size. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach, 3(X), 2014
Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 166–176
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Science and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1.png)
.jpg)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
