Attitude Measuring - Research Proposal Example

Construct a scale to measure people's attitudes CONSTRUCT A SCALE TO MEASURE PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE ABOUT THE BRITISH ARMY'S CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN GRACE SARKAR Order No. 433127 20 April 2010 Table of Contents Introduction 3 More information on Thurstone and Likert scales 3 The Likert scale for analyzing people's attitude 4 Relevance of Thurstone or Likert scale 6 Conclusion 8 Sources 9 CONSTRUCT A SCALE TO MEASURE PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE ABOUT THE BRITISH ARMY'S CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN Introduction The Thurstone and Likert scales dominate attitude measuring tools for any given subject. With respect to the British army's continued involvement in Afghanistan, however, it is pertinent to adopt the Likert scale because of its simplicity and accuracy. True, in the absence of a judging group, it is not possible to totally rely on the Likert scale. But the Likert scale is known for its unbiased and closest to the fact finding criteria and since a more reliable scale has not yet been invented, it is wiser to go along with the Likert scale (Ferguson, Leonard F; 2007). The argument is not without merit for the Likert scale. The Likert scale is not preferred because it appears as the easiest and dependable scale. The judging group in Thurstone scale makes it more attractive. However, the Thurstone scale is laborious and error-prone. It is error prone because too much human activity is involved. In order to cut short the prospect of human error and also to get results more quickly and with lesser error margin, the Likert scale is being suggested. More information on Thurstone and Likert scales "In 1929 Thurstone and Chave presented a method involving the equal appearing interval procedure for scaling items in an attitude scale. As they outlined the method, a rather large number of judges are required to sort statements into piles of equal appearing intervals along the continuum being investigated. "Attempting to shorten this apparently laborious procedure, Likert in 1932 presented a technique which according to him did away with the need for a judging group. His procedure is to extract from the responses of a group of subjects indicating their own attitudes the sigma values to be assigned each response. A simpler method of assigning arbitrary values, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to the Degree of agreement and disagreement with each statement has also been suggested. This latter method is the more practical since total scores secured on such a basis correlate +.99 with those secured upon the basis of the sigma scoring technique" (Ferguson, Leonard F; 2007). The Likert scale for analyzing people's attitude to British army's involvement in Afghanistan Let us apply the Likert scale to analyze people's attitude to the British army's involvement in Afghanistan. It will be necessary to shortlist at least hundred people across different age groups to form the group. We may divide the group of hundred in to three age categories, half of each category comprising women so that result also takes into consideration gender viewpoints. Thus, we have three categories comprising age 12-19 in the first category, age 20-40 in the second category, and 40 and above in the third and last category. The first category may comprise 34 individuals, the second and third categories 33 individuals each. Women will comprise 17 individuals in the first group, 17 individuals in the second group and 16 individuals in the third group. Thus, the selection of the hundred individuals is fairly well representative of the entire population of Britain. Of course, in case possible, we may increase the group to a thousand to get a better idea about the results keeping the proportion of age categories and women's quota intact. The format of the Likert's scale may comprise fifteen questions again divided into three categories of five questions each of which the first five questions may involve the background to highlight the purpose for sending the army to Afghanistan, the second five questions highlighting the local safety and security achieved by sending the army to Afghanistan, and the third and final five questions highlighting the future plans for the army in Afghanistan. The first five questions are: First category 1) The bombing of the Twin Towers in New York was wrong, 2) President Bush's ultimatum to the Taliban in Afghanistan was a mistake, 3) The bombing of Afghanistan as a consequence to 26/9 was an overreaction, 4) Britain had no business to join the USA in the bombing of Afghanistan, and 5) Joining the USA has endangered the safety and security of the British nation. Second category: 1) Britain is a safer nation because of its military action against the Taliban 2) Britain need not take extra measures to ensure safety and security of its citizens as a result of its military action against Afghanistan 3) Britain's military action has increased safety of its citizens in Afghanistan, 4) Britain's military action has sent the message to the terrorists never to repeat 26/9 anywhere in the world, and 5) British military action has firmly underscored the message that repetition of 26/9 will result in such military actions whenever 26/9 actions are repeated. Third category: 1) The British army will stay put in Afghanistan as long as necessary 2) The British army will deal with the terrorists with an iron hand while maintaining friendly relations with the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan 3) The presence of the British army is necessary to ensure law and order situation in Afghanistan 4) The British army has the capability for long term action in Afghanistan, and 5) The British army will not stay in Afghanistan more than required (Arnold, William E et al). Against each of the above questions there will be measurements quoting Strongly agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree, numbering 1 to 5 enabling the individual answerer to circle the answer of his or her choice. The sample people taking the test may be individually questioned or they may be invited for the test in which each individual must be seated as far away as possible from the others so that there is no prospect for coming under anyone else's influence while answering (Leming, Michael R). Relevance of Thurstone or Likert scale in the above research The Thurstone scale will present results that will be separated and categorized by the judging group. The judging group is the main bone of contention between the Thurstone scale and the Likert scale. However, the Likert scale makes up for the judging group by the use of the total scores that correlate to +.99. The use of the judging group makes Thurstone scale more relevant although it is more laborious ((Roberts, James S et al; 1999). The Thurstone scale needs a large number of judges to "sort statements into piles of equal appearing intervals along the continuum being investigated" (Ferguson, Leonard F; 2007). The need of judges in Likert is obviated as the scores are measured against the correlation of +.99. The Likert scale is a simpler version of attitude measurement and also as reliable as the Thurstone scale. At any rate, the Likert scale also needs the procedure of sorting out answers which requires manpower. Hence, it is not totally correct to conclude that no human effort is required in the Likert scale. However, unlike the Thurstone scale, the Likert scale is not dependant on human effort to calculate and analyze answers. Of course, it is not only the measurement but the framing of relevant questions that play equally important role in getting more accurate results (Ferguson, Leonard F; 2007). In laymen terms, Likert scale is preferred because of its simplicity and reliability. However, in the view of some experts, the Thurstone scale is preferred because of its "empirical and clinical potential" (Elder, John P et al; 2005). The Likert scale has been used on the question of the involvement of the British army in Afghanistan because of the overwhelming preference for the Likert scale when compared online with analyzers to the Thurstone scale. The Thurstone scale may be more reliable because of the judging group. However, it is difficult to bank on this reliability in the absence of a firm analysis confirming the superiority of the Thurstone scale. The assumption of superiority of the Thurstone scale by some experts does not justify the preference for the Thurstone scale. The Likert scale continues to attract preference on the basis of its reliability provided the relevant questions are adequately evaluated by a panel of experts. The Likert scale is capable of providing accurate results as compared to the Thurstone scale and there is no data available to scrutinize any major differences with the Thurstone scale (Page-Bucci, Hilary; 2003). There is the possibility that in the future there is a better scale made available than the existing Likert scale to measure attitudes on any given subject. Any measurement to do with attitudes has necessarily to take into account human error on the part of those framing the questions, those answering the questions and those making the evaluations. Any deeper evaluation will necessarily have to involve scientific procedures such as the lying tests. Also, people do and can change their opinions after availability of better information. Conclusion The Likert scale is widely preferred to measure attitudes because it affords reliability and continuity. The Likert scale can be analyzed and re-analyzed quite effortlessly involving little time for the procedures to be carried out and evaluated. It is also the ideal scale because of the nature of its exercise. The Likert scale involves a field of study where people can easily change their minds. Thus, such studies do not require elaborate procedures that involve too much human effort that can easily change for any reason the next minute. The Likert scale makes it necessary to have adequate preparatory procedures leaving little scope for errors. Once due diligence is applied for framing questions responsible for eliciting answers as close as possible to the desired outcome, Likert scale has no substitute (Roberts, James S et al; 1999). Sources: Arnold, William E et al; The Likert type scale, http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/publications/25.htm Elder, John P et al; 31 March 2005, Assessment of social skills using a Thurstone Equal-Appearing Interval Scale, http://www.springerlink.com/content/w137234172672811/ Ferguson, Leonard F; 2007, A Study of the Likert Technique of Attitude Scale Construction, http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/sup/Ferguson_1941.html Leming, Michael R; Operationalization and Measurement, http://www.stolaf.edu/people/leming/soc371res/oper.html Page-Bucci, Hilary; February 2003, The value of Likert scales in measuring attitudes of online learners, http://www.hkadesigns.co.uk/websites/msc/reme/likert.htm Roberts, James S et al; 1999, Validity Issues in the Likert and Thurstone Approaches to Attitude Measurement, http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/2/211 Read More