20240925 - update bib

book.bib

@@ -111480,6 +111480,20 @@ @Book{Kahneman2011
   address   = {New York, NY, US},
 }
 
+
+@Article{Zhang2024,
+  author   = {Zhang, Xijuan and Savalei, Victoria},
+  journal  = {Psychological Methods},
+  title    = {An overview of alternative formats to the Likert format: A comment on Wilson et al. (2022)},
+  year     = {2024},
+  number   = {3},
+  pages    = {606--612},
+  volume   = {29},
+  abstract = {Wilson et al. (2022) compared the Likert response format to an alternative format, which they called the Guttman response format. Using a Rasch modeling approach, they found that the Guttman response format had better properties relative to the Likert response format. We agree with their analyses and conclusions. However, they have failed to mention many existing articles that have sought to overcome the disadvantages of the Likert format through the use of an alternative format. For example, the so-called “Guttman response format” is essentially the same as the Expanded format, which was proposed by Zhang and Savalei (2016) as a way to overcome the disadvantages of the Likert format. Similar alternative formats have been investigated since the 1960s. In this short response article, we provide a review of several alternative formats, explaining in detail the key characteristics of all the alternative formats that are designed to overcome the problems with the Likert format. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)},
+  doi      = {10.1037/met0000631},
+  keywords = {*Forced Choice (Testing Method) *Item Analysis (Statistical) *Item Response Theory Likert Scales},
+}
+
 @Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:bibtex;}
 
 @Comment{jabref-meta: saveActions:enabled;