调查用途可能会影响调查回复。

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Assessment Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-31 DOI:10.1177/10731911231213849
Melissa G Wolf, Alexander J Denison
{"title":"调查用途可能会影响调查回复。","authors":"Melissa G Wolf, Alexander J Denison","doi":"10.1177/10731911231213849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional validation processes for psychological surveys tend to focus on analyzing item responses instead of the cognitive processes that participants use to generate these responses. When screening for invalid responses, researchers typically focus on participants who manipulate their answers for personal gain or respond carelessly. In this paper, we introduce a new invalid response process, discordant responding, that arises when participants disagree with the use of the survey and discuss similarities and differences between this response style and protective responding. Results show that nearly all participants reflect on the intended uses of an assessment when responding to items and may decline to respond or modify their responses if they are not comfortable with the way the results will be used. Incidentally, we also find that participants may misread survey instructions if they are not interactive. We introduce a short screener to detect invalid responses, the discordant response identifiers (DRI), which provides researchers with a simple validity tool to use when validating surveys. Finally, we provide recommendations about how researchers may use these findings to design surveys that reduce this response manipulation in the first place.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey Uses May Influence Survey Responses.\",\"authors\":\"Melissa G Wolf, Alexander J Denison\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911231213849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traditional validation processes for psychological surveys tend to focus on analyzing item responses instead of the cognitive processes that participants use to generate these responses. When screening for invalid responses, researchers typically focus on participants who manipulate their answers for personal gain or respond carelessly. In this paper, we introduce a new invalid response process, discordant responding, that arises when participants disagree with the use of the survey and discuss similarities and differences between this response style and protective responding. Results show that nearly all participants reflect on the intended uses of an assessment when responding to items and may decline to respond or modify their responses if they are not comfortable with the way the results will be used. Incidentally, we also find that participants may misread survey instructions if they are not interactive. We introduce a short screener to detect invalid responses, the discordant response identifiers (DRI), which provides researchers with a simple validity tool to use when validating surveys. Finally, we provide recommendations about how researchers may use these findings to design surveys that reduce this response manipulation in the first place.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231213849\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231213849","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统的心理调查验证过程往往侧重于分析项目回答,而不是参与者产生这些回答的认知过程。在筛选无效回答时,研究人员通常会关注那些为了个人利益而操纵答案或粗心回答的参与者。在本文中,我们介绍了一种新的无效回答过程--不和谐回答,当参与者不同意调查问卷的使用时就会出现这种情况,并讨论了这种回答方式与保护性回答之间的异同。结果表明,几乎所有的参与者在回答项目时都会思考评估的预期用途,如果他们对结果的使用方式不满意,就会拒绝回答或修改回答。顺便提一下,我们还发现,如果调查问卷的说明不是互动式的,参与者可能会误读。我们介绍了一种检测无效回答的简短筛选器--不和谐回答标识符 (DRI),它为研究人员在验证调查问卷时提供了一种简单的有效性工具。最后,我们就研究人员如何利用这些发现来设计调查问卷以减少这种回答操纵现象提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Survey Uses May Influence Survey Responses.

Traditional validation processes for psychological surveys tend to focus on analyzing item responses instead of the cognitive processes that participants use to generate these responses. When screening for invalid responses, researchers typically focus on participants who manipulate their answers for personal gain or respond carelessly. In this paper, we introduce a new invalid response process, discordant responding, that arises when participants disagree with the use of the survey and discuss similarities and differences between this response style and protective responding. Results show that nearly all participants reflect on the intended uses of an assessment when responding to items and may decline to respond or modify their responses if they are not comfortable with the way the results will be used. Incidentally, we also find that participants may misread survey instructions if they are not interactive. We introduce a short screener to detect invalid responses, the discordant response identifiers (DRI), which provides researchers with a simple validity tool to use when validating surveys. Finally, we provide recommendations about how researchers may use these findings to design surveys that reduce this response manipulation in the first place.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
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