Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40231619›Full record

ArticleAssessment2026

Comparing Likert and Slider Response Formats in Clinical Assessment: Evidence From Measuring Depression Symptoms Using CES-D 8.

Guyin Zhang, Amanda J Fairchild, Bo Zhang, Dingjing Shi, Dexin Shi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Guyin ZhangUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-6538-9686
Amanda J FairchildUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Bo ZhangUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, USA.
Dingjing ShiUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman, USA.
Dexin ShiUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4120-6756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared various response formats in fitting confirmatory factor analysis models. Participants responded to the eight-item center for epidemiologic studies depression scale across five different response formats in a within-subjects experimental design: the Likert-type scale, three types of slider response formats, and a number-entry response format. We compared the different response formats based on item-level scores, factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale, mean comparisons across groups, and individuals' sum scores. Similar results were observed across the response formats with respect to factor structure, measurement invariance, reliability, and validity of test scores. However, inconsistent results were found regarding group mean comparisons across groups. Individuals' item scores and sum scores also varied across different response formats, as did participants' subjective evaluations of response formats in terms of perceived accuracy, enjoyment, difficulty, and mental exhaustion. Based on study findings, we provide recommendations and discuss implications for researchers designing and conducting clinical assessments.

Indexed as

DepressionPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultcenter for epidemiologic studies depression scaleconfirmatory factor analysisLikert rating scaleslider scale

Identifiers

PMID40231619
PMCPMC12924885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.