Choice of Rating Scale Labels: Implication for Minimizing Patient Satisfaction Response Ceiling Effect in Telemedicine Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of response variability is problematic in surveys because of its detrimental effects on sensitivity and consequently reliability of the responses. In satisfaction surveys, this problem is caused by the ceiling effect resulting from high satisfaction ratings. A potential solution strategy is to manipulate the labels of the rating scale to create greater discrimination of responses on the high end of the response continuum. This study examined the effects of a positive-centered scale on the distribution and reliability of telemedicine satisfaction responses in a highly positive respondent population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 216 telemedicine participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions as defined by the form of Likert scale: (1) 5-point Balanced Equal-Interval, (2) 5-point Positive-Packed, and (3) 5-point Positive-Centered Equal-Interval. RESULTS: Although the study findings were not statistically significant, partially because of sample size, the distribution and internal consistency reliability of responses occurred in the direction hypothesized. Loading the rating scale with more positive labels appears to be a useful strategy for reducing the ceiling effect and increases the discrimination ability of survey responses. CONCLUSIONS: The current research provides a survey design strategy to minimize ceiling effects. Although the findings provide some evidence suggesting the benefit of using rating scales loaded with positive labels, more research is needed to confirm this, as well as extend it to examine other types of rating scales and the interaction between rating scale formats and respondent characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.285 | 0.515 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".