RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Are self-description scales better than agree/disagree scales?
Timbrook, J. P., Smyth, J., & Olson, K. (2021). Are self-description scales better than agree/disagree scales?International Journal of Market Research, 63(2), 201-215. Article 1470785320971592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320971592
Questions using agree/disagree (A/D) scales are ubiquitous in survey research because they save time and space on questionnaires through display in grids, but they have also been criticized for being prone to acquiescent reports. Alternatively, questions using self-description (SD) scales (asking respondents how well a statement describes them from Completely to Not at All) can also be presented in grids or with a common question stem, and by omitting the word agree, SD scales may reduce acquiescence. However, no research has examined how response patterns may differ across A/D and SD scales. In this article, we compare survey estimates, item nonresponse and nondifferentiation across these two types of scales in a mail survey. We find that SD scales outperform A/D scales for non-socially desirable questions that ask about positive topics. For questions that ask about negative topics, we find that estimates for SD items are significantly more negative than A/D items. This may occur because the SD scale is unipolar and has only one negative response option ( Not at All), whereas the bipolar A/D scale has two negative response options ( Disagree and Strongly Disagree). We recommend that researchers use SD scales for non-socially desirable positive valence questions.
RTI shares its evidence-based research - through peer-reviewed publications and media - to ensure that it is accessible for others to build on, in line with our mission and scientific standards.