Institutionalized Rating Scale

1. A Likert scale (/ˈlɪkərt/[1]) is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research, such that the term is often used interchangeably with rating scale, or more accurately the Likert-type scale. One of the most common scale types is a Likert scale. A Likert scale is commonly used to measure attitudes, knowledge, perceptions, values, and behavioral changes. A Likert-type scale involves a series of statements that respondents may choose from in order to rate their responses to evaluative questions

The 13 hypotheses listed in the Literature Review section were statistically tested. Each hypothesis is again listed below along with the

The Health Star Rating System is a government initiative designed to assist in obesity prevention. This essay reviews PriceWaterhouseCooper’s Cost Benefit Analysis of the Health Star Rating System. This analysis of the system concludes that the government should intervene in the Australian food industry via the Health Star Rating System to a significant extent and should focus on the implementation of complementary obesity prevention methods, including increased funding for health awareness and education. This conclusion is based on consideration of equity, efficiency and political acceptability criteria.

The instrumentation that is to be used is called the Your First College Year (YFCY) survey. This instrument is geared toward freshman college students, and it is a survey that concentrates on student experiences while in college with different areas in their college life. The questionnaire also recaps items from the freshman survey so that any changes can be studied. This particular survey is known to be beneficial for retention studies. This instrument contains 41 questions, and the survey will be administered on the computer instead of using the paper form. The rating scales that are used consists of, but not limited to, questions with ‘yes/no’ answers, ratings such with choices from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, and questions that will have rating choices that range from ‘can’t rate/no experience’ to very satisfied’. It will

The quality of education that Valerie Brock is receiving from Liberty University in her chosen field is the subject of evaluation. Furthermore, Valerie started her major with Liberty University in the Master of Arts in Executive Leadership program. As a matter of fact, Valerie had no “business” knowledge before she began classes since she has a bachelor’s degree in education. Also, Valerie received an “A” in a bridge class that allowed her to change to the major of Master of Business Administration with a concentration in Leadership. Moreover, the Likert-type scale is the tool utilized to retrieve data of Valerie’s satisfaction of the courses she has taken. The following categories are the listed responses Valerie must select from Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree (N) nor Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD). In addition, Valerie’s detailed explanation of each question will be documented.

(Strongly disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Somewhat disagree = 3, Neutral = 4 Somewhat agree = 5, Agree = 6 and Strongly agree = 7). The lower the mean, the stronger the disagreement with the statement; and the higher the mean, the stronger the agreement with the statement). N = The total number of responses

In this chapter, I will analyse the data according to the principles proposed, such as Likert’s scale. According to the data collected, I will come out with certain conclusions to predict the respondents’

Missing values were replaced by the average of all the other items in that scale for that individual respondent. Analyses were conducted to determine if the mean scores for individual items were significantly different (less than or greater) from zero, the neutral response value—signifying either statistically significant disagreement or agreement with an item, respectively. Next, a factor analysis was performed to determine if similar items clustered together into subscales. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and one sample, two-tailed t-tests were calculated for each resulting subscale (Butler, 2010).

Personal views on the survey nearing the end of the course were expected. The institution attempts

This study measured the variables using a questionnaire with two questions. Each question was answered using a Likert scale that ranged form 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, and 5= Agree. The variables measured in this study are the frequency that an individual is treated rudely or being accused of something suspicious and how bothered the individuals are by it. The questionnaire seeks to examine the relationship between two variables, frequency and level of bothersome an individual feels regarding

The instrument asks participants to rate, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, the extent to which they (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) neither disagree nor agree (4) agree, or (5) strongly agree with statements relating to mood recognition, emotional regulation, and empathy. Sample statements include “I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them” and “It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do”. The scale has previously shown to have good construct validity with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 (Schutte et al.

Another variable I looked at was Worthiness. I would have preferred to measure self-esteem, but again the dataset did not include this as a variable. The variable worthiness was labeled as I am a person of worth. Table 3 shows that it was operationalized from 1 to 5 ranked from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This is an ordinal variable with 5 categories that can be treated as an interval ratio variable. The measure of central tendency used would be the mean and standard deviation. As seen in Table 3, the mean is 4, meaning that the average response was 4) Agree and the standard deviation is .78, meaning that 68% of the responses were in between 3.22 and 4.78, because the standard deviation was high the responses were more scattered from

were assessed. The five-item, Likert-type attitude scale explained 54% of the variance in attitude scores and

While reputation bootstrapping concerns trust initializing of newcomer agents in the absence of historical information [18]. Rebootstrapping, on the other hand, is an exploration strategy in the absence of trustworthy agents. The term “rebootstrapping” was first introduced by Griffiths [19], referring to a strategy when there are no trusted agents that provide the required capabilities, the agent with the highest trust level based on some probabilistic models from the pool of untrustworthy agents will be selected. More specifically, rebootstrapping strategy can help avoiding deadlock when in a certain situation all interacting agents are distrusted and are not considered for cooperation. Braynov et al. [8] state that the condition for market efficiency does not require complete trustworthiness assessment. They propose trust revelation mechanism which involves agents holding accurate estimates of one another at the beginning of every transaction, even if they are untrustworthy. In other words, agents having trust value to the degree they deserve to be trusted can transact as efficiently as trustworthy agents. Similar to a multi-criteria rating system

Open-ended questions allow for a greater variety of responses from participants but are difficult to analyze statistically because the data must be coded or reduced in some manner. Closed-ended questions are easy to analyze statistically, but they seriously limit the responses that participants can give. Many researchers prefer to use a Likert-type scale because it’s very easy to analyze statistically. (Jackson, 2009, p. 89)