This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Jamieson S. Likert scale [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 4]. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Likert-Scale.JamiesonS.Likert scale [Internet].2023[cited 2024 Jan 4].Encyclopedia Britannica.Accessed October 31, 2023.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Likert-Scale.Search in Google Scholar
Mohammad Yusof N, Karuppiah K, Md Tamrin S, Rasdi I, Mohamad Jamil PAS. Likert Scale vs. Visual Analogue Scale on vehicle seat discomfort questionnaire: a review. Malaysian J Med Health Sci. 2019;15:159–65.Mohammad YusofNKaruppiahKMd TamrinSRasdiIMohamad JamilPAS.Likert Scale vs. Visual Analogue Scale on vehicle seat discomfort questionnaire: a review.Malaysian J Med Health Sci.2019;15:159–65.Search in Google Scholar
Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ. 2004;38:1217–8.JamiesonS.Likert scales: how to (ab)use them.Med Educ.2004;38:1217–8.Search in Google Scholar
Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:227–36.WewersMELoweNK.A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena.Res Nurs Health.1990;13:227–36.Search in Google Scholar
McLeod A, Pippin S, Wong JA. Revisiting the Likert scale: can the fast form approach improve survey research. Int J Behav Accounting Finance. 2011;2:310.McLeodAPippinSWongJA.Revisiting the Likert scale: can the fast form approach improve survey research.Int J Behav Accounting Finance.2011;2:310.Search in Google Scholar
Maurer TJ, Pierce HR. A comparison of likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83:324–9.MaurerTJPierceHR.A comparison of likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy.J Appl Psychol.1998;83:324–9.Search in Google Scholar
Taherdoost H. Designing a questionnaire for a research paper: a comprehensive guide to design and develop an effective questionnaire. Asian J Managerial Sci. 2022;11:8–16.TaherdoostH.Designing a questionnaire for a research paper: a comprehensive guide to design and develop an effective questionnaire.Asian J Managerial Sci.2022;11:8–16.Search in Google Scholar
Heller GZ, Manuguerra M, Chow R. How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scand J Pain. 2016;13:67–75.HellerGZManuguerraMChowR.How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance.Scand J Pain.2016;13:67–75.Search in Google Scholar
Rosas S, Paço M, Lemos C, Pinho T. Comparison between the Visual Analog Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale in the perception of esthetics and pain. Int Orthod. 2017;15:543–60.RosasSPaçoMLemosCPinhoT.Comparison between the Visual Analog Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale in the perception of esthetics and pain.Int Orthod.2017;15:543–60.Search in Google Scholar
Alkadi L, Masuadi E, Mohamed TA, Mohamud M, Farook F. A Likert Scale Versus a Visual Analogue Scale and the participant response: a cross sectional study. J Int Dent Med Res. 2022;15:255–62.AlkadiLMasuadiEMohamedTAMohamudMFarookF.A Likert Scale Versus a Visual Analogue Scale and the participant response: a cross sectional study.J Int Dent Med Res.2022;15:255–62.Search in Google Scholar
Vickers AJ. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:709–16.VickersAJ.Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness.Int J Technol Assess Health Care.1999;15:709–16.Search in Google Scholar
Akad K, Solmaz D, Sari I, Onen F, Akkoc N, Akar S. Performance of response scales of activity and functional measures of ankylosing spondylitis: numerical rating scale versus visual analog scale. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33:2617–23.AkadKSolmazDSariIOnenFAkkocNAkarS.Performance of response scales of activity and functional measures of ankylosing spondylitis: numerical rating scale versus visual analog scale.Rheumatol Int.2013;33:2617–23.Search in Google Scholar
Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, Christie J, Zare S, McMurray J, . A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest. 1999;116:1208–17.GrantSAitchisonTHendersonEChristieJZareSMcMurrayJ.A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise.Chest.1999;116:1208–17.Search in Google Scholar
Ghasemi M, Sharifi R, Tahani B. Satisfaction with dental appearance and willingness to improve dental aesthetic among patients attending the dental school of Isfahan university of medical sciences. jdm. 2021;34:102–13.GhasemiMSharifiRTahaniB.Satisfaction with dental appearance and willingness to improve dental aesthetic among patients attending the dental school of Isfahan university of medical sciences.jdm.2021;34:102–13.Search in Google Scholar
Dourado GB, Volpato GH, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, Pedron Oltramari PV, Freire Fernandes TM, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC. Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160:844–52.DouradoGBVolpatoGHde Almeida-PedrinRRPedron OltramariPVFreire FernandesTMde Castro Ferreira ContiAC.Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2021;160:844–52.Search in Google Scholar
Hasson D, Arnetz BB. Validation and Findings Comparing VAS vs. Likert Scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2005;8:178–92.HassonDArnetzBB.Validation and Findings Comparing VAS vs.Likert Scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ.2005;8:178–92.Search in Google Scholar
Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13:S31–4.CuschieriS.The STROBE guidelines.Saudi J Anaesth.2019;13:S31–4.Search in Google Scholar
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.SterneJACSavovićJPageMJElbersRGBlencoweNSBoutronI.RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.BMJ.2019;366:l4898.Search in Google Scholar
Hatch CD, Wehby GL, Nidey NL, Moreno Uribe LM. The effects of objective 3D measures of facial shape and symmetry on perceptions of facial attractiveness. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:1958.HatchCDWehbyGLNideyNLMoreno UribeLM.The effects of objective 3D measures of facial shape and symmetry on perceptions of facial attractiveness.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2017;75:1958.Search in Google Scholar
Aşik S, Kök H. Perception of dental midline deviation and smile attractiveness by eye-tracking and aesthetic ratings. Australasian Orthod J. 2021;37:187–96.AşikSKökH.Perception of dental midline deviation and smile attractiveness by eye-tracking and aesthetic ratings.Australasian Orthod J.2021;37:187–96.Search in Google Scholar
Eslamipour F, Riahi FT, Etemadi M, Riahi A. Correlation coefficients of three self-perceived orthodontic treatment need indices. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2017;14:37.EslamipourFRiahiFTEtemadiMRiahiA.Correlation coefficients of three self-perceived orthodontic treatment need indices.Dent Res J (Isfahan).2017;14:37.Search in Google Scholar
Fudalej SA, Desmedt D, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS. Comparison of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54:400–7.FudalejSADesmedtDBronkhorstEFudalejPS.Comparison of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2017;54:400–7.Search in Google Scholar
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:43–51.JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH.A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales.Data from a randomized trial. Control Clin Trials.1990;11:43–51.Search in Google Scholar
Kremer E, Hampton Atkinson J, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10:241–8.KremerEHampton AtkinsonJIgnelziRJ.Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement.Pain.1981;10:241–8.Search in Google Scholar
Phan NQ, Blome C, Fritz F, Gerss J, Reich A, Ebata T, . Assessment of pruritus intensity: prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92:502–7.PhanNQBlomeCFritzFGerssJReichAEbataT.Assessment of pruritus intensity: prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus.Acta Derm Venereol.2012;92:502–7.Search in Google Scholar
Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804.WilliamsonAHoggartB.Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales.J Clin Nurs.2005;14:798–804.Search in Google Scholar
Van Laerhoven H, Van Der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:830–5.Van LaerhovenHVan Der Zaag-LoonenHJDerkxBHF.A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires.Acta Paediatr.2004;93:830–5.Search in Google Scholar
