Experimenting The Box-Cox Family Transformation on Likert Scale Data for Non-Normal Residuals in Linear Regression
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/Keywords:
Box-Co, Transformation, Likert scaleAbstract
Neglecting the necessity for normality of residuals leads to failing in meeting the assumptions of error term in linear regression. Addressing a violation of this assumption requires an appropriate data transformation. The first objective of this study is to identify a suitable Box-Cox transformation (BCT) family for Likert scale data to handle non-normal residuals in multiple linear regression (MLR). When confronting with non-normally distributed MLR residuals, some scholars argue that the ordinary least squares estimation approach, commonly used in linear regression, consistently produces a reliable estimated value even when the error term deviates from a normal distribution. Given these conflicting opinions, one asserting that non-normally distributed error terms result in inaccurate estimates and the other maintains that such deviations do not compromise the consistency of estimates; thus, the second objective of this experiment is to reaffirm the differences in viewpoint by comparing the consistency of estimation values in MLR between cases of normal (transformed) and non-normal (non-transformed) residuals. The study suggested that the optimal BCT occurred at a lambda value 0.5. This specific lambda value corresponds to a logarithmic transformation, signifying a fundamental shift in Likert scale data toward a more normalized distribution or residuals. In the context of conflicting opinions regarding the impact of non-normally distributed error terms on estimates in MLR, this study revealed a significant difference in the mean of estimated values between the transformed and non-transformed models. The empirical evidence suggests that non-normally distributed error terms do lead to inconsistency in estimation values in MLR. Appropriate transformation does contribute to more reliable and interpretable results in MLR.
Downloads
References
Aufa, N., Ishak, M., & Ahmad, S. (2018). Estimating optimal parameter of Box-Cox transformation in multiple regression with non-normal data. Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2016) (Issue Rcstss). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0074-5
Copeland, K. A. F. (1997). Applied Linear Statistical Models. In Journal of Quality Technology, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1997.11979760
Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123.
Knief, U., & Forstmeier, W. (2021). Violating the Normality Assumption may be the Lesser of Two Evils. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2576–2590. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5
Malik, M. A. A., Mustapha, M. F., Sobri, N. M., Abd Razak, N. F., Zaidi, M. N. M., Shukri, A. A., & Sham, M. A. L. Z. (2021). Optimal reliability and validity of measurement model in confirmatory factor analysis: Different likert point scale experiment. Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought, 11, 105-112.
Malik, F. (2018). Box-Cox transformation approach for data normalization: A study of new product development in manufacturing sector of Pakistan. IBT Journal of Business Studies, 14(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.jbs.2018.14.01.09
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
Mitek. (2022). Advantages and disadvantages of non-parametric tests. UKEssays, 26–29. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/communications/interpersonal-relationships-advantages-2866.php
Pek, J., Wong, O., & Wong, A. C. (2018). How to address non-normality: A taxonomy of approaches, reviewed, and illustrated. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02104
Pimentel, J. L. (2019). Some biases in likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 45(1), 183–191.
Sachin, A., & Us, C. (2019). Non-normal data: How to deal with it? https://shorturl.at/efIU4
Schmidt, A. F., & Finan, C. (2018). Linear regression and the normality assumption. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 98(0), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.006
Suárez-Alvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33
Taherdoost, H. (2019). What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design; review of different lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 8(1), 2296–1747.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jasrul Nizam Ghazali, Muhammad Firdaus Mustapha, Mohd Azry Abdul Malik, Nur Alia Sofea Ahmad Fauzi, Nor Aina Nabila Japri, Nur Khaliesah Supardi, Amri Ab Rahman, Omar Kairan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


