评估教学操纵检查的结构有效性,以此衡量对调查的粗心答复。

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL
Applied Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1177/01466216241284293
Mark C Ramsey, Nathan A Bowling, Preston S Menke
{"title":"评估教学操纵检查的结构有效性,以此衡量对调查的粗心答复。","authors":"Mark C Ramsey, Nathan A Bowling, Preston S Menke","doi":"10.1177/01466216241284293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Careless responding measures are important for several purposes, whether it's screening for careless responding or for research centered on careless responding as a substantive variable. One such approach for assessing carelessness in surveys is the use of an instructional manipulation check. Despite its apparent popularity, little is known about the construct validity of instructional manipulation checks as measures of careless responding. Initial results are inconclusive, and no study has thoroughly evaluated the validity of the instructional manipulation check as a measure of careless responding. Across 2 samples (<i>N</i> = 762), we evaluated the construct validity of the instructional manipulation check under a nomological network. We found that the instructional manipulation check converged poorly with other measures of careless responding, weakly predicted participant inability to recognize study content, and did not display incremental validity over existing measures of careless responding. Additional analyses revealed that instructional manipulation checks performed poorly compared to single scores of other alternative careless responding measures and that screening data with alternative measures of careless responding produced greater or similar gains in data quality to instructional manipulation checks. Based on the results of our studies, we do not recommend using instructional manipulation checks to assess or screen for careless responding to surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":48300,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychological Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11501094/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Mark C Ramsey, Nathan A Bowling, Preston S Menke\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01466216241284293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Careless responding measures are important for several purposes, whether it's screening for careless responding or for research centered on careless responding as a substantive variable. One such approach for assessing carelessness in surveys is the use of an instructional manipulation check. Despite its apparent popularity, little is known about the construct validity of instructional manipulation checks as measures of careless responding. Initial results are inconclusive, and no study has thoroughly evaluated the validity of the instructional manipulation check as a measure of careless responding. Across 2 samples (<i>N</i> = 762), we evaluated the construct validity of the instructional manipulation check under a nomological network. We found that the instructional manipulation check converged poorly with other measures of careless responding, weakly predicted participant inability to recognize study content, and did not display incremental validity over existing measures of careless responding. Additional analyses revealed that instructional manipulation checks performed poorly compared to single scores of other alternative careless responding measures and that screening data with alternative measures of careless responding produced greater or similar gains in data quality to instructional manipulation checks. Based on the results of our studies, we do not recommend using instructional manipulation checks to assess or screen for careless responding to surveys.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11501094/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241284293\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241284293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无论是筛查粗心应答,还是将粗心应答作为一个实质性变量进行研究,粗心应答测量方法在多个方面都非常重要。在调查中评估粗心的一种方法是使用指导性操作检查。尽管这种方法显然很受欢迎,但人们对教学操纵检查作为粗心应答测量方法的构建有效性知之甚少。初步结果尚无定论,也没有研究对教学操纵检查作为粗心应答测量方法的有效性进行全面评估。我们通过 2 个样本(N = 762),评估了名义网络下教学操纵检查的建构有效性。我们发现,教学操纵检查与其他粗心应答测量的收敛性较差,对被试无法识别学习内容的预测能力较弱,而且与现有的粗心应答测量相比,没有显示出增量有效性。其他分析表明,与其他粗心应答测量方法的单项得分相比,指导性操作检查的表现很差,而用其他粗心应答测量方法筛选数据,在数据质量方面的收益要大于或类似于指导性操作检查。根据我们的研究结果,我们不建议使用教学操作检查来评估或筛查粗心应答调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys.

Careless responding measures are important for several purposes, whether it's screening for careless responding or for research centered on careless responding as a substantive variable. One such approach for assessing carelessness in surveys is the use of an instructional manipulation check. Despite its apparent popularity, little is known about the construct validity of instructional manipulation checks as measures of careless responding. Initial results are inconclusive, and no study has thoroughly evaluated the validity of the instructional manipulation check as a measure of careless responding. Across 2 samples (N = 762), we evaluated the construct validity of the instructional manipulation check under a nomological network. We found that the instructional manipulation check converged poorly with other measures of careless responding, weakly predicted participant inability to recognize study content, and did not display incremental validity over existing measures of careless responding. Additional analyses revealed that instructional manipulation checks performed poorly compared to single scores of other alternative careless responding measures and that screening data with alternative measures of careless responding produced greater or similar gains in data quality to instructional manipulation checks. Based on the results of our studies, we do not recommend using instructional manipulation checks to assess or screen for careless responding to surveys.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信