Comparing Person-Fit and Traditional Indices Across Careless Response Patterns in Surveys.

Abstract

Methods to identify carelessness in survey research can be valuable tools in reducing bias during survey development, validation, and use. Because carelessness may take multiple forms, researchers typically use multiple indices when identifying carelessness. In the current study, we extend the literature on careless response identification by examining the usefulness of three item-response theory-based person-fit indices for both random and overconsistent careless response identification: infit MSE outfit MSE, and the polytomous l_z statistic. We compared these statistics with traditional careless response indices using both empirical data and simulated data. The empirical data included 2,049 high school student surveys of teaching effectiveness from the Network for Educator Effectiveness. In the simulated data, we manipulated type of carelessness (random response or overconsistency) and percent of carelessness present (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%). Results suggest that infit and outfit MSE and the l_z statistic may provide complementary information to traditional indices such as LongString, Mahalanobis Distance, Validity Items, and Completion Time. Receiver operating characteristic curves suggested that the person-fit indices showed good sensitivity and specificity for classifying both over-consistent and under-consistent careless patterns, thus functioning in a bidirectional manner. Carelessness classifications based on low fit values correlated with carelessness classifications from LongString and completion time, and classifications based on high fit values correlated with classifications from Mahalanobis Distance. We consider implications for research and practice.