Negative Numbers and Order of Numbers in Student Ratings

Abstract

This study is one in a program of empirical examinations of the effects of format variables on student ratings of effectiveness of college teachers and courses. This study investigated the influence of negative numbers and order of numbers on the level and reliability of student ratings of teaching effectiveness. N o studies of student rating scales were found in which negative numbers or order of numbers were systematically investigated. However, Follman, Lucoff, Small, and Power (1973) in an earlier scudy, found that negative phrasing of items led to much lower mean scores than did positive phrasing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate furcher different formats, specifically negative numbers (+2, +1, 0, -1, 2 , and reverse order ( 5 , 4, 3, 2, 1) and natural order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) . Two classes at the University of South Florida in May, 1973 constituted the student samples. Instructor 1 conducted an undergraduate guidance class, Instructor 2 an undergraduate science class. Within each class, students were randomly assigned to the three treatment groups. Ss were told that they were participating in a study of scale formats and they were asked to rate the instructor and course as they ordinarily would if no study were being conducted. The rating scale was a 17-item teacher and course scale developed at the University. Ratings were quanrified 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Ns, reliability estimates, and means, respectively, for Instructor 1 were: 25,.88, and 4.26 for the reverse order; 18, .90, and 4.20 for the natural order; and 21, .85, and 4.43 for negarlve numbers. Ns, reliability estimates, and means, respectively, for Instrucror 2 were: 21, .93, and 3.18 for the reverse order; 25, .94, and 2.96 for the natural order; and 23, .90, and 3.17 for negative numbers. Separate analyses of variance indicated no significant differences in total score for either instructor. Significant differences were found on four individual items for Instructor 1, none for Instructor 2. Ir is concluded that nature and order of numbers used on teacher rating scales is not important despite a slight tendency for lower ratings to be associated with the natural format.