Scale Coarseness as a Methodological Artifact

By Herman Aguinis, C. Pierce, Steven A. Culpepper. 2009

75 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b38b748d94d10e760b74687dddaf165b3a88875b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. James C. Hayton
2. G. Cacciotti
3. P. Vermeulen
4. David G. Allen
5. J. Mitchell
6. Petru Lucian Curseu
7. Matt C. Howard
8. Matthew Courtney

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. James C. Hayton
2. G. Cacciotti
3. David G. Allen
4. P. Vermeulen
5. R. Jansen
6. J. Mitchell
7. Petru Lucian Curseu
8. Jacques Geurts

In Statistics and Probability

1. G. Cacciotti
2. P. Vermeulen
3. David G. Allen
4. James C. Hayton
5. J. Mitchell
6. Petru Lucian Curseu

Citations in the corpus

• Information processing and strategic decision-making in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of human and social capital in attaining decision effectiveness (2013, background): “Furthermore, the use of a mixture of scales with different ranges is not considered problematic because the reliability of Likert-type scales does not depend on the number of points on the scale (Aguinis et al., 2009).”
• Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation (2020, background): “agree-disagree anchors may be associated with an acquiescence bias that constrains variance in responses and also leads to different cognitive processing requirements relative to more constructspecific response anchors (Aguinis et al., 2009).”