李克特式量表语义差异对科学测量的影响

doi:|10.6049/kjjbydc.2017020128

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS AND POLICY

2017, Vol. 34

Issue (20): 1-6 DOI: |10.6049/kjjbydc.2017020128

Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search

The Effect of Semantic Difference of Likerttype Questionaires on Scientific Measurements

Han Guanghua，Fan Bo

School of International and Public Affairs，Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (0)

Download: PDF (1253 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Likerttype questionaires quantify the interviewees' opinions and are often employed in many applications, including regional ranking of technological innovation environment. Some options are provided in the items of Likerttype of questionaires and the interviewees are asked to select one option from the displayed ones. Each option indicates different scales, based on which the total scores of all interviewees are calculated. However, the interview is mandaterly to select one choice from the displayed options and the scale of the selected option is provided by the invesgator, where the provided scale might not equal to the interviewee's opinion. The difference is named by semantic difference. Since the semantic bias on scores that provided by the interviewee and invesgator, the scientific measurements based on the data collected by Likerttype questionaires may leads to unrobust conclusions. After giving a normal defination of semantic difference, the paper suggest an application of Likerttype questionaires in regional ranking of technological innovation to illustrate the affections of the semantic differnece. Moreover, the mathematical and numberical analyses are employed to analyze how much semantic difference is torerated for a robust result of ranking and some suggestions to reduce semantic difference are also given in the end of the study. An numerical study is provided to present the theorical findings of the study and show the calculating process that suggested in the paper.

Key words： Likerttype of Questionnaire Semantic Difference Scientific Measurement

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Han Guanghua
	Fan Bo

Cite this article:

Han Guanghua,Fan Bo. The Effect of Semantic Difference of Likerttype Questionaires on Scientific Measurements[J]. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS AND POLICY, 2017, 34(20): 1-6.

URL:

http://www.kjjb.org/EN/|10.6049/kjjbydc.2017020128 OR http://www.kjjb.org/EN/Y2017/V34/I20/1

［1］HUIJBREGTS H J, KHAN R J K, FICK D P, et al.Prosthetic alignment after total knee replacement is not associated with dissatisfaction or change in Oxford Knee Score: a multivariable regression analysis［J］.The Knee, 2016, 23(3): 535539.

［2］王元地,陈禹.区域“双创”能力评价指标体系研究——基于因子分析和聚类分析［J］.科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(20): 115121.

［3］徐顽强,孙正翠,周丽娟.基于主成分分析法的科技服务业集聚化发展影响因子研究［J］.科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(1): 5963.

［4］潘雁,叶颖,朱珺,等.应用 SF36 量表分析高血压患者生命质量 (QOL) 的影响因素［J］.复旦学报 :医学版, 2014, 41(2): 205209.

［5］SULLIVAN G M, ARTINO JR A R.Analyzing and interpreting data from Likerttype scales［J］.Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2013, 5(4): 541542.

［6］王爽, 刘彦兵, 刘轶芳.海淀区科技创新型企业发展能力评价研究［J］.数学的实践与认识, 2013, 43(19): 7683.

［7］俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山.科技评价中同行评议与指标体系关系的研究——以《泰晤士报》世界大学排名为例［J］.科学学研究, 2008, 26(5): 927931.

［8］董彦斌,孙慧,张其.基于主成分分析的区域科技创新能力评价［J］.科技进步与对策, 2012, 29(12): 2630.

［9］陈文军, 梅姝娥.江苏省主要城市科技竞争力比较研究［J］.科技管理研究, 2014, 34(13): 4751.

［10］曹梦.山西省 11 地市科技创新能力与创新效率研究［D］.太原：中北大学, 2015.

［11］段小薇, 李璐璐, 苗长虹, 等.中部六大城市群产业转移综合承接能力评价研究［J］.地理科学, 2016, 36(5): 681690.

［12］LIKERT R.A technique for the measurement of attitudes［J］.Archives of Psychology, 1932（4）.

［13］ERTO P, VANACORE A.A probabilistic approach to measure hotel service quality［J］.Total Quality Management, 2002, 13(2): 165174.

［14］GROBELNA A, MARCISZEWSKA B.Measurement of service quality in the hotel sector: the case of Northern Poland［J］.Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 2013, 22(3): 313332.

［15］AWAN M U, MAHMOOD K.Development of a service quality model for academic libraries［J］.Quality & Quantity, 2013, 47(2): 10931103.

［16］YURTSEVEN H R.Service quality of troy: an importancesatisfaction analysis［D］.Germany： University of Muenchen,2005.

［17］乔柱, 杨国盛, 章文俊.双极主观等级量表的级别选取［J］.机械设计与研究, 2009, 25(4): 7072.

［18］LEHMANN D R, HULBERT J.Are threepoint scales always good enough ［J］.Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9(4)：444446.

［19］李亚红.大学新生SCL90量表计分与赋值计分的差别研究［J］.保健医学研究与实践, 2010(4): 3334.

［20］OLSSON U, DRASGOW F, DORANS N J.The polyserial correlation coefficient［J］.Psychometrika, 1982, 47(3): 337347.

［21］亓莱滨.李克特量表的统计学分析与模糊综合评判［J］.山东科学, 2006, 19(2): 1823.

［22］简明,魏泉红.顺序量表的矛盾［J］.统计与决策, 1998 (6): 4242.

［23］TAN C,HAN G,GOH T.Service quality comparison［C］.Asian Network for Quality Congress, 2014.

［24］杜跃平, 马晶晶.科技创新创业金融政策满意度研究［J］.科技进步与对策,2016,33(9):9.