Interpreting Likert type scales, summated scales, unidimensional scales, and attitudinal scales: I neither agree nor disagree, Likert or not

James R. Lindner; Nicholas Lindner

doi:10.37433/aad.v5i2.351

Authors

James R. Lindner Auburn University, Alabama, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-3846
Nicholas Lindner Duke University, North Carolina, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.351

Keywords:

human behavioral research, behavioral scaling, educational research, psychological research, true limits, effect size, quality education

Abstract

This paper provides a rationale and convention for discussing the true limits and interpretation of data collected using unidimensional, summated, Likert-type, and attitudinal scales used in research investigating human behavior, sociology, education, psychology, and other related fields of study. All vague quantifiers must be described in methods and findings. The true limits of the scale and of each vague quantifier should be described. This information should be placed in the methods section. A five-point summated scale, for example, can be interpreted as follows: Strongly Agree = 5 - 4.51, Agree = 4.5 - 3.51, Neither Agree nor Disagree = 3.5 - 2.51, Disagree = 2.5 - 1.51, Strongly Disagree = 1.5 - 1. This paper also provides a rationale and convention for the use of nonstandardized effect size (ES) estimates to describe the magnitude and strength of the effect. This is accomplished by subtracting one summated M from another summated M and interpreted using the following convention: Small (ES = .19 and lower); Medium (ES = .20 - .49); and Large (ES = .50 and higher). The rationale for this is based on the intuitiveness of the measure, true limits of the scale, and scale intervals.

Editorial Update: This article was originally published with an incorrect title: Interpreting Likert type, summated, unidimensional, and attitudinal scales: I neither agree nor disagree, Likert or not. It has been updated to reflect the correct title as of 8/14/2026.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.04031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.04031

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed). John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition (5th ed.). Sage.

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003

Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biology, 13(3), e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

Lindner, J. R., Rodriguez, M. T., Strong, R., Jones, D., & Layfield, D. (2016). Research priority area 2: New technologies, practices, and products adoption decisions. American Association for Agricultural Education National Research Agenda, 2020, 19-27. https://aaea.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/AAAE_National_Research_Agenda_2016-2020.pdf

Miller, L. E. (1998). Appropriate analysis. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1998.02001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1998.02001

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.

Sisson, D. V., & Stocker, H. R. (1989). Research corner: analyzing and interpreting Likert-type survey data. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 31(2), 81-85.

Sullivan, G. M., & Arino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Educating, 5(4), 541-542. https://doi.org/10.4300%2FJGME-5-4-18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18

Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529-554. https://doi.org/10.1086/214483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/214483

Warmbrod, J. R. (2014). Reporting and interpreting scores derived from Likert-type scales. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05030