Publication: Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research?
| dc.contributor.author | UZUNÇARŞILI SOYDAŞ, AYDA | |
| dc.contributor.authors | Harzing, Anne-Wil; Baldueza, Joyce; Barner-Rasmussen, Wilhelm; Barzantny, Cordula; Canabal, Anne; Davila, Anabella; Espejo, Alvaro; Ferreira, Rita; Giroud, Axele; Koester, Kathrin; Liang, Yung-Kuei; Mockaitis, Audra; Morley, Michael J.; Myloni, Barbara; Odusanya, Joseph O. T.; O'Sullivan, Sharon Leiba; Palaniappan, Ananda Kumar; Prochno, Paulo; Choudhury, Srabani Roy; Saka-Helmhout, Ayse; Siengthai, Sununta; Viswat, Linda; Soydas, Ayda Uzuncarsili; Zander, Lena | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-14T09:59:10Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-01-11T14:08:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-03-14T09:59:10Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009-08 | |
| dc.description.abstract | We propose solutions to two recurring problems in cross-national research: response style differences and language bias. In order to do so, we conduct a methodological comparison of two different response formats-rating and ranking. For rating, we assess the effect of changing the commonly used 5-point Likert scales to 7-point Likert scales. For ranking, we evaluate the validity of presenting respondents with short scenarios for which they need to rank their top 3 solutions. Our results - based on two studies of 1965 undergraduate and 1714 MBA students in 16 different countries - confirm our hypotheses that both solutions reduce response and language bias, but show that ranking generally is a superior solution. These findings allow researchers to have greater confidence in the validity of cross-national differences if these response formats are used, instead of the more traditional 5-point Likert scales. In addition, our findings have several practical implications for multinational corporations, relating to issues such as selection interviews, performance appraisals, and cross-cultural training. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.03.001 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0969-5931 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11424/243825 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000268417200008 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.publisher | ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject | Cross-national research | |
| dc.subject | Research methods | |
| dc.subject | Response style differences | |
| dc.subject | Language bias | |
| dc.subject | Survey research | |
| dc.subject | CULTURAL ACCOMMODATION | |
| dc.subject | HONG-KONG | |
| dc.subject | STYLE | |
| dc.subject | VALUES | |
| dc.subject | PERFORMANCE | |
| dc.subject | DIMENSIONS | |
| dc.subject | ISSUES | |
| dc.subject | IMPACT | |
| dc.title | Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research? | |
| dc.type | article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 432 | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 4 | |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 417 | |
| oaire.citation.title | INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 18 |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
