The Impact of Midpoint Responses and Reverse Coding on Survey Data

By Gail H. Weems, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2001

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/132cc36e83bf05463008b5ef88602e17fb7376fd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Investigation of Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating (2011, background): “Third, several measures were compromised by reverse-coded items, possibly due to the fact that the negatively worded items were not measuring the same underlying trait as the positively worded items, and this produced systematically different responses (Weems & Onwuegbuzie, 2001).”
Financing buyer–supplier dyads: an empirical analysis on financial collaboration in the supply chain (2016, background): “There were three main reasons for selecting the four-point Likert-type scale: the reduction of the midpoint response bias (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2006) and the desirability bias (Garland 1991) as well as the often higher reliability of scales (Weems and Onwuegbuzie 2001).”
Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale (2017, background): “…know option when respondents are comfortable with the survey topic (they have formed their opinions), when they are under strong social desirability pressures (John, 2005), or when it is expected that some respondents have little or no involvement in the survey topic (Weems & Onwuegbyzie, 2001).”
The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response catgory labels (2010, background): “The provision of more intermediate categories around the midpoint reduces the size of the middle category, as it stimulates respondents to express their attitude even if their attitude is only slightly positive or negative (Weems & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Matell & Jacoby, 1972).”
Method Effects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions (2010, background): “…1971), differential use of positively versus negatively worded items (Weems, Onwuegbuzie, Schreiber & Eggers, 2003), central tendency (e.g., Weems & Onwuegbuzie, 2001), and extreme response style (e.g., Greenleaf, 1992b) that also deserve additional research as source of method variance…”
A Framework for Reporting and Interpreting Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (2002, background): “Weems and Onwuegbuzie (2001) also noted that use of mixed stems (i.e., positively and negatively worded items) had the potential to reduce score reliability.”
On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching (2013, background): “Based on several studies, Onwuegbuzie and Weems (2004; Weems & Onwuegbuzie, 2001) argued that the inclusion of a midpoint option attenuates the internal consistency of SET scores.”