The Impact of Different Methods to Correct for Response Styles on the External Validity of Self-Reports

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
A. Scharl, Timo Gnambs
{"title":"The Impact of Different Methods to Correct for Response Styles on the External Validity of Self-Reports","authors":"A. Scharl, Timo Gnambs","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Response styles (RSs) such as acquiescence represent systematic respondent behaviors in self-report questionnaires beyond the actual item content. They distort trait estimates and contribute to measurement bias in questionnaire-based research. Although various approaches were proposed to correct the influence of RSs, little is known about their relative performance. Because different correction methods formalize the latent traits differently, it is unclear how model choice affects the external validity of the corrected measures. Therefore, the present study on N = 1,000 Dutch respondents investigated the impact of correcting responses to measures of self-esteem and the need for cognition using structural equation models with structured residuals, multidimensional generalized partial credit models, and multinomial processing trees. The study considered three RSs: extreme, midpoint, and acquiescence RS. The results showed homogeneous correlation patterns among the modeled latent and external variables, especially if they were not themselves subject to RSs. In that case, the IRT-based models, including an uncorrected model, still yielded consistent results. Nevertheless, the strength of the effect sizes showed variation.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000731","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. Response styles (RSs) such as acquiescence represent systematic respondent behaviors in self-report questionnaires beyond the actual item content. They distort trait estimates and contribute to measurement bias in questionnaire-based research. Although various approaches were proposed to correct the influence of RSs, little is known about their relative performance. Because different correction methods formalize the latent traits differently, it is unclear how model choice affects the external validity of the corrected measures. Therefore, the present study on N = 1,000 Dutch respondents investigated the impact of correcting responses to measures of self-esteem and the need for cognition using structural equation models with structured residuals, multidimensional generalized partial credit models, and multinomial processing trees. The study considered three RSs: extreme, midpoint, and acquiescence RS. The results showed homogeneous correlation patterns among the modeled latent and external variables, especially if they were not themselves subject to RSs. In that case, the IRT-based models, including an uncorrected model, still yielded consistent results. Nevertheless, the strength of the effect sizes showed variation.
不同答题方式对自我报告外部效度的影响
摘要默认等回应风格代表了自我报告问卷中超出实际项目内容的系统性被调查者行为。它们扭曲了对特质的估计,并在基于问卷的研究中造成了测量偏差。虽然提出了各种方法来纠正RSs的影响,但对它们的相对性能知之甚少。由于不同的校正方法对潜在特征的形式化不同,模型选择如何影响校正措施的外部效度尚不清楚。因此,本研究采用结构化残差结构方程模型、多维广义部分信用模型和多项处理树来研究纠正反应对自尊和认知需求的影响。该研究考虑了三种RSs:极端RSs、中点RSs和默认RSs。结果显示,建模的潜在变量和外部变量之间存在均匀的相关模式,特别是当它们本身不受RSs影响时。在这种情况下,基于红外光谱的模型,包括一个未修正的模型,仍然产生一致的结果。然而,效应量的强度表现出变化。
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
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信