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).

中文翻译：

---

李克特格式的替代格式概述：对 Wilson 等人（2022 年）的评论。


Wilson 等人（2022 年）将李克特响应格式与另一种格式进行了比较，他们称之为 Guttman 响应格式。使用 Rasch 建模方法，他们发现 Guttman 响应格式相对于 Likert 响应格式具有更好的特性。我们同意他们的分析和结论。然而，他们没有提到许多现有的文章，这些文章试图通过使用替代格式来克服李克特格式的缺点。例如，所谓的 “格特曼反应格式 ”与Expanded格式基本相同，后者是由Zhang和Savalei （2016）提出的，作为克服李克特格式缺点的一种方式。自 1960 年代以来，人们一直在研究类似的替代格式。在这篇简短的回应文章中，我们回顾了几种替代格式，详细解释了旨在克服李克特格式问题的所有替代格式的关键特征。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。