Is It Biased? Empirical Analysis of Various Phenomena That Affect Survey Results

Q3 Social Sciences
L. Mandić, K. Klasnić
{"title":"Is It Biased? Empirical Analysis of Various Phenomena That Affect Survey Results","authors":"L. Mandić, K. Klasnić","doi":"10.5613/rzs.51.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is often assumed that survey results reflect only the quality of the sample and the underlying measuring instruments used in the survey. However, various phenomena can affect the results, but these influences are often neglected when conducting surveys. This study aimed to test the influences of various method effects on survey results. We tested the influences of the following method effects: item wording, confirmatory bias, careless responding, and acquiescence bias. Using a split-ballot survey design with online questionnaires, we collected data from 791 participants. We tested if these method effects had an influence on mean values, item correlations, construct correlations, model fits, and construct measurement invariance. The instruments used to test these influences were from the domain of personality and gender inequality, and their items were adapted based on the method effect tested. All tested method effects, except careless responding, had a statistically significant effect on at least one component of the analysis. Item wording and confirmatory bias affected mean values, model fit, and measurement invariance. Controlling for acquiescence bias improved the fit of the model. This paper confirms that the tested method effects should be carefully considered when using surveys in research, and suggests some guidelines on how to do so.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revija za Sociologiju","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.51.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is often assumed that survey results reflect only the quality of the sample and the underlying measuring instruments used in the survey. However, various phenomena can affect the results, but these influences are often neglected when conducting surveys. This study aimed to test the influences of various method effects on survey results. We tested the influences of the following method effects: item wording, confirmatory bias, careless responding, and acquiescence bias. Using a split-ballot survey design with online questionnaires, we collected data from 791 participants. We tested if these method effects had an influence on mean values, item correlations, construct correlations, model fits, and construct measurement invariance. The instruments used to test these influences were from the domain of personality and gender inequality, and their items were adapted based on the method effect tested. All tested method effects, except careless responding, had a statistically significant effect on at least one component of the analysis. Item wording and confirmatory bias affected mean values, model fit, and measurement invariance. Controlling for acquiescence bias improved the fit of the model. This paper confirms that the tested method effects should be carefully considered when using surveys in research, and suggests some guidelines on how to do so.
它有偏见吗?影响调查结果的各种现象的实证分析
通常认为,调查结果只反映样本的质量和调查中使用的基本测量仪器。然而,各种现象可能会影响结果,但在进行调查时,这些影响往往被忽视。本研究旨在检验各种方法效果对调查结果的影响。我们测试了以下方法效应的影响:项目措辞、确认性偏倚、粗心回答和默认偏倚。我们采用在线问卷的分票调查设计,收集了791名参与者的数据。我们测试了这些方法效应是否对均值、项目相关性、结构相关性、模型拟合和结构测量不变性有影响。用于测试这些影响的工具来自人格和性别不平等领域,它们的项目是根据测试的方法效果进行调整的。所有测试方法的效果,除了不小心的反应外,对分析的至少一个组成部分都有统计学上的显著影响。项目措辞和验证性偏倚影响平均值、模型拟合和测量不变性。对默认偏差的控制提高了模型的拟合度。本文证实,在研究中使用调查时,应仔细考虑测试方法的效果,并就如何做到这一点提出了一些指导方针。
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
Revija za Sociologiju
Revija za Sociologiju Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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