Adoption of Likert-Type Scales for Airline Service Quality Assessment

Adetayo Olaniyi  Adeniran; Olutayo Sunday Fakunle

doi:10.31181/sa31202537

Authors

Adetayo Olaniyi Adeniran Department of Transport Planning and Logistics, University of Ilesa, Ilesa, Osun State, Nigeria. Author
Olutayo Sunday Fakunle Department of Sociology, Redeemers’s University, Ede, Osun State, Nigeria. Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0053-0082

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sa31202537

Keywords:

Coefficient alpha, Cronbach’s alpha, Multidimensionality, Reliability, Unidimensionality

Abstract

Likert scales are helpful in social science and perception studies. High-quality tests are essential to examine the dependability of the data provided in a particular evaluation. One often-used measure of test reliability is Cronbach alpha. The dimensionality and test duration have an impact on it. The fundamentally tau-equivalent approach’s (a statistical method that measures how consistent a set of items are in a test) presumptions should be followed by alpha as a reliability indicator. If these presumptions are not met, a low alpha is shown. The Airline Service Quality (ASQ) test measures the quality of services offered by a specific airline using service attributes provided by the airline, which influence passenger satisfaction and enhance more than one-time patronage. The original instrument used measured opinions of a four-point Likert scale with fifteen airline service items, and the allowable Cronbach’s Alphas for the original test ranged from 0.70 to 0.95. By first adding a “3 represents undecided” option and then adding four-word items to the instrument, a five-point Likert scale was developed from the original instrument. The test was piloted with 33 participants.This pilot study’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85; following its employment in a larger research study, the instrument’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, resulting in a tool with good internal consistency. Since reliability test depends on the extent of test, Cronbach alpha does not only evaluate test homogeneity or unidimensionality. Whether a test is homogeneous or not, its reliability is increased by its extent. A high alpha score (> 0.90) might indicate that the test should be shorter and may indicate redundancy.

References

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. and Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson, columbus. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1811842

Olaniyi, A. A. (2019). Application of likert scale’s type and cronbach’s alpha analysis in an airport. Scholar journal of applied sciences and research, 2(4), 1–5. https://innovationinfo.org/articles/SJASR/SJASR-4-223.pdf

Tavakol, M., Mohagheghi, M. A., & Dennick, R. (2008). Assessing the skills of surgical residents using simulation. Journal of surgical education, 65(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2007.11.003

Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study i: reliability and validity. Educational and psychological measurement, 31(3), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447103100307

Barnette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and psychological measurement, 60(3), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970592

Wendy K. Adams, C. E. W. (2010). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert‐like thinking. International journal of science education, 9, 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369

Pamela L. Alreck, R. B. S. (1985). The survey research handbook. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Survey_Research_Handbook.html?id=yxFZkB29y60C

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. Archives of psychology, 22, 5–55. https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf

Barnette, J. J. (2001). Likert survey primacy effect in the absence or presence of negatively-worded items. Research in the schools, 8(1), 77–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ663803

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986038

B Brown, J. D. (1997). Reliability of surveys. Testing & evaluation sig newsletter, 1(2), 18–21. https://teval.jalt.org/test/bro_2.htm

Chen, Y.-H., Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Dedrick, R. F. (2007). Detecting effects of positively and negatively worded items on a self-concept scale for third and sixth grade elementary students. Online submission. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503122

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342

Chirayu Auewarakul, Steven M. Downing, R. P. & U. J. (2005). Item analysis to improve reliability for an internal medicine undergraduate OSCE. Springer link, 10, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-2315-3

Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality1. Educational and psychological measurement, 37(4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700403

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M., & Sturman, E. (2012). Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement. McGraw hill. https://perpus.univpancasila.ac.id/repository/EBUPT181396.pdf

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=1867797

Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Applied psychological measurement, 27(3), 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621603027003001

Symonds, P. M. (1924). On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale. APA psycnet, 7(6), 456–461. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0074469

Guilford, J. P. (1955). Psychometric Methods. Cambridge university press, 20(2), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288988

Ray, J. J. (1980). How many answer categories should attitude and personality scales use? South african journal of psychology, 10(1–2), 53–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124638001000108

Gliem, J. A., Gliem, R. R., & others. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education (Vol. 1, pp. 82–87). http://pioneer.chula.ac.th/~ppongsa/2900600/LMRM08.pdf

Maurer, T. J., & Pierce, H. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of applied psychology, 83(2), 324. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.324

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Leganger, A., Kraft, P., & Roysamb, E. (2000). Perceived self-efficacy in health behaviour research: Conceptualisation, measurement and correlates. Psychology and health, 15(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400288

Green, S. B., & Thompson, M. S. (1989). Structural equation modeling in clinical psychology research. , 138 Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (Vol. 138). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756980.ch8

Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. Harper. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1950-00647-000

Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of business ethics, 10, 805–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383696

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

Brown, J. D. (2000). What issues affect Likert-scale questionnaire formats. Shiken: JALT testing & evaluation sig newsletter, 4(1). 27-30. https://teval.jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown7.pdf

Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: is it desirable. Marketing bulletin, 2(1), 66–70. http://scorevoting.net/MB_V2_N3_Garland.pdf

Schwarzer, R. (2002). The general self-efficacy scale (GSE), department of health. Psychology. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/engscal.htm

Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R. B. (2003). Survey research handbook. 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2361388

Punuri, S. B., Kuanar, S. K., Kolhar, M., Mishra, T. K., Alameen, A., Mohapatra, H., & Mishra, S. R. (2023). Efficient Net-XGBoost: An implementation for facial emotion recognition using transfer learning. Mathematics, 11(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11030776

Guru, A., Mohanta, B. K., Mohapatra, H., Al-Turjman, F., Altrjman, C., & Yadav, A. (2023). A survey on consensus protocols and attacks on blockchain technology. Applied sciences, 13(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042604