Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 1999 20(4):503-533; doi:10.1093/applin/20.4.503
© 1999 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Low, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

What respondents do with questionnaires: accounting for incongruity and fluidity

G Low

EFL Unit, Language Teaching Centre, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK E-mail: gdl1@york.ac.uk

Much remains to be learned about how respondents go about answering written questionnaires. The present study focused on Likert-type questionnaires with agree or approve rating scales, and used the data from a small Think Aloud (TA) study involving nine university students to explore reactions to items involving incongruity. An earlier paper (Low 1996a) had suggested that the phenomenon of transforming items by moving or reduplicating words might be connected with reactions to incongruity. Close analysis of the TA utterances revealed the use at various points of all or part of a sequence of response strategies which I call 'the Scale Construction approach'; the sequence was as follows. The respondent first produced a personal reaction to the statement. Where his/her focus differed from that of the designer, a new dimension was constructed and scaled. The respondent's personal reaction was then located on the new scale, making use of the verbal labels that the designer happened to have put at the chosen (scale) point. Though the hypothesized link between movement and incongruity was not supported, the data did not suggest reasons for moving or reduplicating words. Movement was used (a) to help construct a personal reaction, or (b) as part of an exploratory phase whereby the respondent tested whether s/he was happy with his/her reaction. The 'scale construction' approach is shown to be compatible with, though more general than, Sommer's (1991) suggestion of metaphoric response and to have greater explanatory power than his notion of an internal rating template. In sum, it constitutes a common-sense strategy of wanting to convey one's own ideas in minimally interactive circumstances.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.