Distinguishing Between Models for Extreme and Midpoint Response Styles as Opposite Poles of a Single Dimension versus Two Separate Dimensions: A Simulation Study.

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL
Martijn Schoenmakers, Maria Bolsinova, Jesper Tijmstra
{"title":"Distinguishing Between Models for Extreme and Midpoint Response Styles as Opposite Poles of a Single Dimension versus Two Separate Dimensions: A Simulation Study.","authors":"Martijn Schoenmakers, Maria Bolsinova, Jesper Tijmstra","doi":"10.1177/01466216251379471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Extreme and midpoint response styles have frequently been found to decrease the validity of Likert-type questionnaire results. Different approaches for modelling extreme and midpoint responding have been proposed in the literature, with some advocating for a unidimensional conceptualization of the response styles as opposite poles, and others modelling them as separate dimensions. How these response styles are modelled influences the estimation complexity, parameter estimates, and detection of and correction for response styles in IRT models. For these reasons, we examine if it is possible to empirically distinguish between extreme and midpoint responding as two separate dimensions versus two opposite sides of a single dimension. The various conceptualizations are modelled using the multidimensional nominal response model, with the AIC and BIC being used to distinguish between the competing models in a simulation study and an empirical example. Results indicate good performance of both information criteria given sufficient sample size, test length, and response style strength. The BIC outperformed the AIC in cases where no response styles were present, while the AIC outperformed the BIC in cases where multiple response style dimensions were present. Implications of the results for practice are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48300,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"01466216251379471"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216251379471","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Extreme and midpoint response styles have frequently been found to decrease the validity of Likert-type questionnaire results. Different approaches for modelling extreme and midpoint responding have been proposed in the literature, with some advocating for a unidimensional conceptualization of the response styles as opposite poles, and others modelling them as separate dimensions. How these response styles are modelled influences the estimation complexity, parameter estimates, and detection of and correction for response styles in IRT models. For these reasons, we examine if it is possible to empirically distinguish between extreme and midpoint responding as two separate dimensions versus two opposite sides of a single dimension. The various conceptualizations are modelled using the multidimensional nominal response model, with the AIC and BIC being used to distinguish between the competing models in a simulation study and an empirical example. Results indicate good performance of both information criteria given sufficient sample size, test length, and response style strength. The BIC outperformed the AIC in cases where no response styles were present, while the AIC outperformed the BIC in cases where multiple response style dimensions were present. Implications of the results for practice are discussed.

区分极端和中点响应风格模型作为单一维度与两个独立维度的对立极点:一项模拟研究。
极端和中点反应风格经常被发现会降低李克特型问卷结果的效度。文献中提出了不同的模拟极端和中点反应的方法,一些人主张将反应风格作为相反的两极进行一维概念化,而另一些人则将它们作为单独的维度进行建模。如何对这些响应样式建模会影响IRT模型中响应样式的估计复杂性、参数估计以及检测和校正。由于这些原因,我们检查是否有可能在经验上区分极端和中点响应作为两个独立的维度与单个维度的两个相反的方面。使用多维名义响应模型对各种概念化进行建模,AIC和BIC用于区分模拟研究和经验示例中的竞争模型。结果表明,在给定足够的样本量、测试长度和响应风格强度的情况下,这两种信息标准都具有良好的性能。在没有反应风格维度的情况下,BIC优于AIC,而在存在多个反应风格维度的情况下,AIC优于BIC。讨论了研究结果对实践的影响。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Applied Psychological Measurement publishes empirical research on the application of techniques of psychological measurement to substantive problems in all areas of psychology and related disciplines.
×
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