Careless Responding and Insufficient Effort Responding

Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang
{"title":"Careless Responding and Insufficient Effort Responding","authors":"Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Careless responding, also known as insufficient effort responding, refers to survey/test respondents providing random, inattentive, or inconsistent answers to question items due to lack of effort in conforming to instructions, interpreting items, and/or providing accurate responses. Researchers often use these two terms interchangeably to describe deviant behaviors in survey/test responding that threaten data quality. Careless responding threatens the validity of research findings by bringing in random and systematic errors. Specifically, careless responding can reduce measurement reliability, while under specific circumstances it can also inflate the substantive relations between variables. Numerous factors can explain why careless responding happens (or does not happen), such as individual difference characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness), survey characteristics (e.g., survey length), and transient psychological states (e.g., positive and negative affect). To identify potential careless responding, researchers can use procedural detection methods and post hoc statistical methods. For example, researchers can insert detection items (e.g., infrequency items, instructed response items) into the questionnaire, monitor participants’ response time, and compute statistical indices, such as psychometric antonym/synonym, Mahalanobis distance, individual reliability, individual response variability, and model fit statistics. Application of multiple detection methods would be better able to capture careless responding given convergent evidence. Comparison of results based on data with and without careless respondents can help evaluate the degree to which the data are influenced by careless responding. To handle data contaminated by careless responding, researchers may choose to filter out identified careless respondents, recode careless responses as missing data, or include careless responding as a control variable in the analysis. To prevent careless responding, researchers have tried utilizing various deterrence methods developed from motivational and social interaction theories. These methods include giving warning, rewarding, or educational messages, proctoring the process of responding, and designing user-friendly surveys. Interest in careless responding has been growing not only in business and management but also in other related disciplines. Future research and practice on careless responding in the business and management areas can also benefit from findings in other related disciplines.","PeriodicalId":294617,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Careless responding, also known as insufficient effort responding, refers to survey/test respondents providing random, inattentive, or inconsistent answers to question items due to lack of effort in conforming to instructions, interpreting items, and/or providing accurate responses. Researchers often use these two terms interchangeably to describe deviant behaviors in survey/test responding that threaten data quality. Careless responding threatens the validity of research findings by bringing in random and systematic errors. Specifically, careless responding can reduce measurement reliability, while under specific circumstances it can also inflate the substantive relations between variables. Numerous factors can explain why careless responding happens (or does not happen), such as individual difference characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness), survey characteristics (e.g., survey length), and transient psychological states (e.g., positive and negative affect). To identify potential careless responding, researchers can use procedural detection methods and post hoc statistical methods. For example, researchers can insert detection items (e.g., infrequency items, instructed response items) into the questionnaire, monitor participants’ response time, and compute statistical indices, such as psychometric antonym/synonym, Mahalanobis distance, individual reliability, individual response variability, and model fit statistics. Application of multiple detection methods would be better able to capture careless responding given convergent evidence. Comparison of results based on data with and without careless respondents can help evaluate the degree to which the data are influenced by careless responding. To handle data contaminated by careless responding, researchers may choose to filter out identified careless respondents, recode careless responses as missing data, or include careless responding as a control variable in the analysis. To prevent careless responding, researchers have tried utilizing various deterrence methods developed from motivational and social interaction theories. These methods include giving warning, rewarding, or educational messages, proctoring the process of responding, and designing user-friendly surveys. Interest in careless responding has been growing not only in business and management but also in other related disciplines. Future research and practice on careless responding in the business and management areas can also benefit from findings in other related disciplines.
漫不经心的回应和不够努力的回应
粗心的回答,也被称为不充分的努力回答,是指调查/测试的受访者由于缺乏遵守指示,解释项目和/或提供准确的回答而对问题项目提供随机,不注意或不一致的答案。研究人员经常交替使用这两个术语来描述调查/测试响应中威胁数据质量的异常行为。粗心的回答会带来随机和系统性的错误,从而威胁到研究结果的有效性。具体而言,粗心的回答会降低测量的可靠性,而在特定情况下,也会夸大变量之间的实质性关系。许多因素可以解释为什么粗心的反应发生(或不发生),例如个体差异特征(例如,责任心),调查特征(例如,调查长度)和短暂的心理状态(例如,积极和消极的影响)。为了识别潜在的粗心反应,研究人员可以使用程序检测方法和事后统计方法。例如,研究者可以在问卷中插入检测项目(如不常见项目、指示反应项目),监测参与者的反应时间,计算统计指标,如心理测量反义词/同义词、马氏距离、个体信度、个体反应变异性、模型拟合统计等。应用多种检测方法可以更好地捕捉到收敛证据下的粗心响应。比较有和没有粗心的应答者基于数据的结果可以帮助评估粗心应答对数据的影响程度。为了处理被粗心回答污染的数据,研究人员可以选择过滤掉确定的粗心回答,将粗心回答重新编码为缺失数据,或者将粗心回答作为分析中的控制变量。为了防止粗心的反应,研究人员尝试利用从动机和社会互动理论发展出来的各种威慑方法。这些方法包括给予警告、奖励或教育信息,监督响应过程,以及设计用户友好的调查。不仅在商业和管理领域,而且在其他相关学科领域,人们对漫不经心的回应越来越感兴趣。未来在商业和管理领域对粗心响应的研究和实践也可以受益于其他相关学科的研究成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信