Likert and Likert-type scales also referred to as “measures<\/strong>” and “instruments<\/strong>” are used in research to measure a construct<\/strong><\/em>. A construct is just something that researchers want to measure. For example, stress<\/strong> is a construct. In the past, many students have assumed that researchers make new survey items items each time they want to research a construct. While that does happen sometimes, typically scientists will use an existing, validated<\/em> scale because it has already been vetted. <\/p>\n In the methods portion of published psychological articles,<\/strong> authors explain how variables were measured. There may be observed measurements, such as the number of times someone said “um” in their speech to represent nervous behaviors (stress indicators) in public speaking or heart rate during the same activity. However, there are oftentimes self-report scales used to measure variables. <\/p>\n Saleem and Akram (2018) studied academic stress, academic performance, and psychological well-being in college students. Academic performance was measured through grades obtained on one recent exam. Look at the section in the Methods where stress and well-being measures were explained: <\/p>\n (Saleem & Akram, 2018, p. 27).<\/p>\n The researchers reported the exact scales that were used to measure each of these variables. These were a bit more involved than the measurements WE are going to use, but nonetheless, the point I’m trying to make is that the measurements used here were already existing, cited, and explained. Here we can see that the items were rated on a Likert-type scale where 1=strongly agree and 6=strongly disagree. It was mentioned that negatively worded items were reverse-scored prior to calculating total score. Scores were sums, not averaged. Sometimes scales require an average and other scales are required to sum. There are also some that have equations needed for scoring. Luckily, I’m not going to make you do that! Finally, one of the more important aspects of what was reported is that previous research was cited showing Cronbach’s alpha was calculated showing good internal consistency. A very simplified explanation of that is just that items on the scale were highly correlated as predicted. Note that the researchers then reported their OWN calculation of Cronbach’s alpha in their data. (Note, >=.70 for Cronbach’s alpha is acceptable or better…higher = better). You can also read more about Cronbach’s alpha in your textbook, Morling (2021), page 132.<\/p>\n I’d like to draw your attention to Saleem and Akram’s (2018) measure of Educational Stress: <\/p>\n Here’s the Saleem and Akram (2018)<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a> article itself… The sample was “350 college learners” (Saleem & Akram, 2018, p. 26). Do you see a potential issue here? Plus, this scale was also translated from its original English version. If you check that article, the reporting on characteristics of the sample was not very descriptive. Now, this is not to say that the results of this study are not trustworthy…just that there are a few red flags that should be noted as limitations. When reading methods, you should always do so with a critical eye.<\/em><\/p>\n Consider your research question (chosen in week 1) and which two variables you need to consider for the measurements section (a subsection of the methods) of your final paper. I have scales for each variable except<\/em> GPA, which didn’t need a scale. Other than GPA, your options included stress, motivation, and procrastination. For this assignment, choose one of the variables that you will be using and download the article listed. <\/p>\n You will then do the following:<\/p>\nAssignment Requirements:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n