1 Introduction
Attitudes—favourable or unfavourable evaluations of ideas, people, objects, or events—shape behaviour and decision-making. Measuring attitudes systematically helps educators diagnose classroom climate, marketers gauge consumer preferences, and policymakers understand public opinion. Attitude scales make these invisible constructs quantifiable by transforming subjective reactions into numerical scores. This assignment provides a comprehensive, research-based roadmap for Construction of an Attitude Scale that satisfies five core criteria: validity, reliability, objectivity, usability, and interpretability.
2 Pre-Construction Foundations
2.1 Clarify the Construct
Begin with a precise conceptual definition. E.g., “Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education” should specify the cognitive, affective, and behavioural components intended for measurement.
2.2 Define Objectives
-
Diagnostic? Identify strengths and weaknesses.
-
Predictive? Forecast future behaviour.
-
Evaluative? Assess effect of an intervention.
2.3 Determine the Target Population
Age, language proficiency, cultural background, and education level guide wording and scale format.
3 Choose an Appropriate Scaling Technique
| Technique | Scale Type | Typical Response Format | Best Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likert (Summated Ratings) | Ordinal-treated-as-interval | 5- or 7-point agreement | Broad attitudes & classroom surveys |
| Thurstone (Equal-Appearing Intervals) | Interval | Agree/Disagree with pre-weighted items | When equal psychological distance needed |
| Guttman (Cumulative) | Ordinal | Yes/No hierarchy | Measuring progressive intensity |
| Semantic Differential | Bipolar adjectives | 7-point scale | Connotative meaning of concepts |
| Stapel / Rating Scale | Numerical | +5 to –5 without neutral | Marketing & advertising research |
Most modern studies favour the Likert-type scale for its simplicity and strong reliability when items are well-constructed.
4 Item Writing
4.1 Generate an Item Pool
Aim for 3–4× the final number of statements to allow for attrition during item analysis.
4.2 Guidelines for Effective Statements
-
Express single ideas; avoid double-barrelled items.
-
Use clear, specific language at the reading level of respondents.
-
Balance positive and negative wording to curb acquiescence bias.
-
Avoid universal qualifiers (always, never) unless theoretically justified.
-
Exclude jargon, colloquialisms, and culturally biased references.
4.3 Initial Content Validation
Request subject-matter experts (SMEs) to review each statement for relevance and clarity, applying a 4-point content-validity index (CVI) scale.
5 Formatting the Scale
-
Opt for 5- or 7-point response categories (“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”) to balance sensitivity and respondent fatigue.
-
Place negatively keyed items randomly to control response sets.
-
Provide concise instructions, emphasising honesty and anonymity.
-
Pilot the visual layout for readability on both print and mobile devices.
6 Pilot Testing (Try-Out)
6.1 Sampling
Select 30–100 respondents mirroring the target population. Larger samples yield more stable psychometrics but small pilots help catch structural issues early.
6.2 Data Collection Ethics
Secure informed consent and assure confidentiality. Allow participants to skip questions to minimise careless marks.
6.3 Item Analysis Metrics
| Metric | Formula/Tool | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Item-Total Correlation (ITC) | Pearson’s r between item and total score (excluding the item) | > 0.30 desirable |
| Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted | Alpha recomputed sans item | If α increases, consider dropping item |
| Response Distribution | % choosing each category | Detect floor/ceiling & non-functioning categories |
Retain items showing good discrimination, acceptable skew, and conceptual relevance.
7 Establishing Reliability
7.1 Internal Consistency
-
Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.70 for exploratory studies; ≥ 0.80 for high-stakes decisions.
7.2 Test–Retest Stability
Administer the scale twice, 2–4 weeks apart, and compute Pearson’s r. Values ≥ 0.70 indicate temporal stability.
7.3 Split-Half Reliability
Divide items into odd vs even halves, correlate scores, and apply Spearman-Brown prophecy formula for full-length estimate.
8 Establishing Validity
| Type | Evidence Required |
|---|---|
| Content Validity | SME ratings, CVI ≥ 0.80 |
| Construct Validity | Factor analysis confirming theoretical dimensions; AVE > 0.50 |
| Convergent/Discriminant | Correlate with related (high) and unrelated (low) constructs |
| Criterion-Related | Predictive correlation with behavioural outcomes; r ≥ 0.30 desirable |
9 Scoring Procedures
-
Reverse-Score negatively worded items.
-
Sum or average ratings to obtain total score; higher scores represent more favourable attitudes.
-
Convert raw scores to percentiles or T-scores for ease of interpretation across samples.
10 Norm Development
Collect data from a large, representative sample (N ≥ 300). Compute:
-
Mean (μ) and Standard Deviation (σ).
-
Percentile ranks.
-
Standard scores (Z = (X – μ)/σ; T = 50 + 10Z).
Publish norm tables by demographic subgroups if attitudes are likely to differ by age, gender, or educational level.
11 Ensuring Ethical and Cultural Sensitivity
-
Pilot items across diverse sub-groups to detect differential item functioning (DIF).
-
Translate and back-translate for multilingual contexts.
-
Comply with institutional review board (IRB) protocols.
12 Final Administration Guidelines
-
Provide a quiet, distraction-free setting.
-
Encourage honest responses; emphasize there are no “right” answers.
-
Monitor completion time; < 15 minutes reduces fatigue.
-
Offer debriefing and access to aggregate results for transparency.
13 Reporting Results
A complete technical manual should include:
-
Purpose and theoretical framework.
-
Detailed methodology of construction.
-
Reliability and validity evidence.
-
Norm tables and scoring keys.
-
Sample administration script.
For journal articles or presentations, follow APA (7th ed.) structure and include effect sizes, confidence intervals, and limitations.
14 Common Pitfalls & Remedies
| Pitfall | Consequence | Remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Ambiguous wording | Misinterpretation | SME review, cognitive interviewing |
| Too many reverse items | Respondent confusion | Limit to < 25 % of total |
| Overly long scales | Fatigue, careless marks | Aim for 10-25 items with strong psychometrics |
| Cultural bias | Invalid comparisons | Conduct DIF, adapt or remove biased items |
15 Future Directions
-
Computer-Adaptive Attitude Testing (CAAT) to shorten administration.
-
Implicit attitude measures (e.g., IAT) as complements to self-report.
-
Integration with learning analytics dashboards for real-time feedback.
16 Conclusion
Construction of an Attitude Scale is a multi-stage, evidence-driven endeavour that demands clarity of purpose, meticulous item writing, empirical refinement, and rigorous validation. By adhering to the systematic procedures detailed above—grounded in classical test theory yet compatible with modern analytics—you can create an instrument that yields reliable, valid, and actionable insights into human attitudes.
Use this guide as a blueprint for your home-assignment, and you will demonstrate both theoretical understanding and practical competence in educational and psychological measurement.
Discover more from YOUR SMART CLASS
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
