Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Likert scale versus the visual analogue scale in evaluating dentofacial aesthetics: a systematic review Cover

Likert scale versus the visual analogue scale in evaluating dentofacial aesthetics: a systematic review

Open Access
|Jun 2024

References

  1. Jamieson S. Likert scale [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 4]. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Likert-Scale.
  2. Mohammad Yusof N, Karuppiah K, Md Tamrin S, Rasdi I, Mohamad Jamil PAS. Likert Scale vs. Visual Analogue Scale on vehicle seat discomfort questionnaire: a review. Malaysian J Med Health Sci. 2019;15:159–65.
  3. Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ. 2004;38:1217–8.
  4. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:227–36.
  5. McLeod A, Pippin S, Wong JA. Revisiting the Likert scale: can the fast form approach improve survey research. Int J Behav Accounting Finance. 2011;2:310.
  6. Maurer TJ, Pierce HR. A comparison of likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83:324–9.
  7. Taherdoost H. Designing a questionnaire for a research paper: a comprehensive guide to design and develop an effective questionnaire. Asian J Managerial Sci. 2022;11:8–16.
  8. Heller GZ, Manuguerra M, Chow R. How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scand J Pain. 2016;13:67–75.
  9. Rosas S, Paço M, Lemos C, Pinho T. Comparison between the Visual Analog Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale in the perception of esthetics and pain. Int Orthod. 2017;15:543–60.
  10. Alkadi L, Masuadi E, Mohamed TA, Mohamud M, Farook F. A Likert Scale Versus a Visual Analogue Scale and the participant response: a cross sectional study. J Int Dent Med Res. 2022;15:255–62.
  11. Vickers AJ. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:709–16.
  12. Akad K, Solmaz D, Sari I, Onen F, Akkoc N, Akar S. Performance of response scales of activity and functional measures of ankylosing spondylitis: numerical rating scale versus visual analog scale. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33:2617–23.
  13. Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, Christie J, Zare S, McMurray J, . A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest. 1999;116:1208–17.
  14. Ghasemi M, Sharifi R, Tahani B. Satisfaction with dental appearance and willingness to improve dental aesthetic among patients attending the dental school of Isfahan university of medical sciences. jdm. 2021;34:102–13.
  15. Dourado GB, Volpato GH, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, Pedron Oltramari PV, Freire Fernandes TM, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC. Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160:844–52.
  16. Hasson D, Arnetz BB. Validation and Findings Comparing VAS vs. Likert Scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2005;8:178–92.
  17. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13:S31–4.
  18. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
  19. Hatch CD, Wehby GL, Nidey NL, Moreno Uribe LM. The effects of objective 3D measures of facial shape and symmetry on perceptions of facial attractiveness. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:1958.
  20. Aşik S, Kök H. Perception of dental midline deviation and smile attractiveness by eye-tracking and aesthetic ratings. Australasian Orthod J. 2021;37:187–96.
  21. Eslamipour F, Riahi FT, Etemadi M, Riahi A. Correlation coefficients of three self-perceived orthodontic treatment need indices. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2017;14:37.
  22. Fudalej SA, Desmedt D, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS. Comparison of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54:400–7.
  23. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:43–51.
  24. Kremer E, Hampton Atkinson J, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10:241–8.
  25. Phan NQ, Blome C, Fritz F, Gerss J, Reich A, Ebata T, . Assessment of pruritus intensity: prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92:502–7.
  26. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804.
  27. Van Laerhoven H, Van Der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:830–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2024-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2207-7480 | Journal ISSN: 2207-7472
Language: English
Page range: 158 - 168
Submitted on: Sep 1, 2023
|
Accepted on: Apr 1, 2024
|
Published on: Jun 5, 2024
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Hanis Nabilah Marzuki, Izzah Zahirah, May Nak Lau, Elavarasi Kuppusamy, Nik Mukhriz Nik Mustapha, Asma Ashari, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.