Comportamiento de las correlaciones producto-momento y tetracórica-policórica en escalas ordinalesun estudio de simulación

  1. Martínez-Abad, Fernando 1
  2. Rodríguez-Conde, María José 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Relieve: Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa

ISSN: 1134-4032

Any de publicació: 2017

Volum: 23

Número: 2

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.7203/RELIEVE.23.2.9476 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Relieve: Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa

Resum

The statistical multivariate analysis of Likert response scales, given their widespread use, is a controversial issue in the scientific community, mainly from the specification of the problem of measurement. This work aims to study various conditions of these ordinal scales affect the calculation of the product-moment and tetrachoric-polychoric correlation coefficients. For this purpose, a simulation study was applied in which 90 databases with 10 items each were generated. In the estimation of the databases, the following variables were controlled: number of response categories, symmetrical or asymmetric distributions of data, sample size and level of relationship between items. Thus, 90 matrices (10x10) were obtained which included the difference between the product-moment and tetrachoric-polychoric correlations. The graphical and variance analysis show how the product-moment correlation coefficient significantly underestimates the relationship between variables mainly when the number of response categories of the ordinal scale is small and the relationship between the variables is large. On the other hand, the statistical estimation of both coefficients is very similar when the starting relationship between pairs of variables is small and/or when the number of response options of the variables is greater than 5. The study concludes by making a recommendation to the applied researcher on the most appropriate correlation coefficient depending on the type of data available. Finally, the results are discussed from the previous studies, which reach some similar conclusions.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Abad, F. J. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Bandalos, D. L., & Enders, C. K. (1996). The Effects of Nonnormality and Number of Response Categories on Reliability. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(2), 151-160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0902_4
  • Birkett, N. J. (1986). Selecting the number of response categories for a Likert-type scale. En Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 488-492). USA.
  • Burga León, A. (2012). La unidimensionalidad de un instrumento de medición: perspectiva factorial. Revista de Psicología, 24(1), 53-80.
  • Cain, M.K., Zhang, Z. & Yuan, K.H. (en prensa). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, inflluence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-0160814-1
  • Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-Order Effects in Likert-Type Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 531540. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491513002
  • Choi, J., Peters, M., & Mueller, R. O. (2010). Correlational analysis of ordinal data: from Pearson’s r to Bayesian polychoric correlation. Asia Pacific education review, 11(4), 459-466. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9096-y
  • Cicchetti, D. V., Shoinralter, D., & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The Effect of Number of Rating Scale Categories on Levels of Interrater Reliability : A Monte Carlo Investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(1), 31-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900103
  • Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
  • Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for nonstatisticians: a step-by-step approach. San Francisco: Wiley. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118165881
  • Cox, E. P. (1980). The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407-422. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3150495
  • Ferreyra, M. F., & Backhoff-Escudero, E. (2016). Validez del Generador Automático de Ítems del Examen de Competencias Básicas (Excoba). RELIEVE, 22(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.22.1.8048
  • Freiberg Hoffmann, A., Stover, J. B., de la Iglesia, G., & Fernández Liporace, M. (2013). Correlaciones policóricas y tetracóricas en estudios factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios. Ciencias Psicológicas, 7(2), 151-164.
  • García Cueto, E., Muñiz Fernández, J., & Hernández Baeza, A. (2000). Comportamiento del modelo de respuesta graduada en función del número de categorías de la escala. Psicothema, 12(2), 288-291.
  • Gilley, W. F., & Uhlig, G. E. (1993). Factor Analysis and Ordinal Data. Education, 114(2), 258.
  • González-González, H., Álvarez-Castillo, J.L., & Fernández-Caminero, G. (2015). Desarrollo y validación de una escala de medida de la empatía intercultural. RELIEVE, 21(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.2.7841
  • Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., & Vila–Abad, E. (2008). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153-166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
  • Hopkins, W. G. (2000). A new view of statistics. Recuperado a partir de http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/
  • Lara, S. A. D. (2014). ¿Matrices Policóricas/Tetracóricas o Matrices Pearson? Un estudio metodológico. Recuperado 16 de junio de 2016, a partir de http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=3334 30869006
  • Lévy Mangin, J.-P. (2006). Modelización con estructuras de covarianzas en ciencias sociales: temas esenciales, avanzados y aportaciones especiales. España: Netbiblo.
  • López González, E. (2012). Sugerencias para el análisis de escalas con métrica delicada. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 5(1), 84-105.
  • Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/16142241.4.2.73
  • Marcus-Roberts, H. M., & Roberts, F. S. (1987). Meaningless Statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12(4), 383-394. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986012004383
  • Muñiz, J. (1998). La medición de lo psicológico. Psicothema, 10(1), 1-21.
  • Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likertscale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033601
  • Maydeu-Olivares, A., Kramp, U., GarcíaForero, C., Gallardo-Pujol, D., & Coffman, D. (2009). The effect of varying the number of response alternatives in rating scales: Experimental evidence from intra-individual effects. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 295-308. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.295
  • Morales Vallejo, P. (2000). Medición de actitudes en psicología y educación: construcción de escalas y problemas metodológicos. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.
  • Morales Vallejo, P., Urosa, S., & Blanco, A. (2003). Construcción de escalas de actitudes tipo likert: una guía práctica. Madrid: La Muralla.
  • Morata-Ramírez, M. de los Á., & HolgadoTello, F. P. (2013). Construct Validity of Likert Scales through Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Simulation Study Comparing Different Methods of Estimation Based on Pearson and Polychoric Correlations. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 1(1), 54-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v1i1.27
  • Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 171-189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.20448317.1992.tb00975.x
  • Myers, N.D., Ahn, S., Lu, M., Celimli, S., & Zopluoglu, C. (2017). Reordering and reflecting factors for simulation studies with exploratory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(1), 112-128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1230 721
  • Nunnally, S. W. (2010). Construction Methods and Management (8 edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson.
  • Oliden, P. E., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema, 20(4), 896-901.
  • Olmos Migueláñez, S., Martínez Abad, F., Torrecilla Sánchez, E. M., & Mena Marcos, J. (2014). Análisis psicométrico de una escala de percepción sobre la utilidad de Moodle en la universidad. RELIEVE, 20(2), art. 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4221
  • Panter, A. T., Swygert, K. A., Grant Dahlstrom, W., & Tanaka, J. S. (1997). Factor analytic approaches to personality item-level data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 561-589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_6
  • Pearse, N. (2011). Deciding on the Scale Granularity of Response Categories of Likert type Scales: The Case of a 21-Point Scale. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 159-171.
  • Pearson, K. (1900). Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. VII. On the Correlation of Characters not Quantitatively Measurable. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 195, 1-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1900.0022
  • Pearson, K. (1910). On a New Method of Determining Correlation, when One Variable is Given by Alternative and the Other by Multiple Categories. Biometrika, 7(3), 248-257. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2345385
  • Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S00016918(99)00050-5
  • Richaud, M. C. (2005). Desarrollos del analisis factorial para el estudio de item dicotomicos y ordinales. Interdisciplinaria, 22(2), 237-251.
  • Saris, W. E., & Coenders, G. (1995). Categorization and measurement quality. The choice between Pearson and Polychoric correlations. En W. Saris & A. Munnich, The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instruments (pp. 125145). Budapest: Eotvos University Press. Recuperado a partir de http://dare.uva.nl/record/1/113406
  • Serrano Angulo, J., Cebrián Robles, D. & Serrano Puerto, J. (2015). Control de calidad de datos obtenidos de cuestionarios en escalas Lickert. En AIDIPE, Investigar con y para la sociedad (pp. 167-176). Cádiz: Bubok Publishing S.L.
  • Shafel, J., Brooke, L. N., & Gillmor, S. C. (2012). Effects of the Number of Response Categories on Rating Scales (pp. 1-24). Presentado en Anual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.
  • Siegel, S. (1970). Estadística no paramétrica: aplicada a las ciencias de la conducta. México: Trillas.
  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677-680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677
  • Ulitzsch, E., Holtmann, J., Schultze, M., & Eid, M. (2017). Comparing Multilevel and Classical Confirmatory Factor Analysis Parameterizations of Multirater Data: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(1), 80-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1251 846
  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236-247. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004
  • Weng, L.-J. (2004). Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956-972. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet