区间反应格式的区分效力:调查区间宽度的维度结构。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Matthias Kloft, Daniel W Heck
{"title":"区间反应格式的区分效力:调查区间宽度的维度结构。","authors":"Matthias Kloft, Daniel W Heck","doi":"10.1177/00131644241283400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In psychological research, respondents are usually asked to answer questions with a single response value. A useful alternative are interval response formats like the dual-range slider (DRS) where respondents provide an interval with a lower and an upper bound for each item. Interval responses may be used to measure psychological constructs such as variability in the domain of personality (e.g., self-ratings), uncertainty in estimation tasks (e.g., forecasting), and ambiguity in judgments (e.g., concerning the pragmatic use of verbal quantifiers). However, it is unclear whether respondents are sensitive to the requirements of a particular task and whether interval widths actually measure the constructs of interest. To test the discriminant validity of interval widths, we conducted a study in which respondents answered 92 items belonging to seven different tasks from the domains of personality, estimation, and judgment. We investigated the dimensional structure of interval widths by fitting exploratory and confirmatory factor models while using an appropriate multivariate logit function to transform the bounded interval responses. The estimated factorial structure closely followed the theoretically assumed structure of the tasks, which varied in their degree of similarity. We did not find a strong overarching general factor, which speaks against a response style influencing interval widths across all tasks and domains. Overall, this indicates that respondents are sensitive to the requirements of different tasks and domains when using interval response formats.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644241283400"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586930/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discriminant Validity of Interval Response Formats: Investigating the Dimensional Structure of Interval Widths.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Kloft, Daniel W Heck\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00131644241283400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In psychological research, respondents are usually asked to answer questions with a single response value. A useful alternative are interval response formats like the dual-range slider (DRS) where respondents provide an interval with a lower and an upper bound for each item. Interval responses may be used to measure psychological constructs such as variability in the domain of personality (e.g., self-ratings), uncertainty in estimation tasks (e.g., forecasting), and ambiguity in judgments (e.g., concerning the pragmatic use of verbal quantifiers). However, it is unclear whether respondents are sensitive to the requirements of a particular task and whether interval widths actually measure the constructs of interest. To test the discriminant validity of interval widths, we conducted a study in which respondents answered 92 items belonging to seven different tasks from the domains of personality, estimation, and judgment. We investigated the dimensional structure of interval widths by fitting exploratory and confirmatory factor models while using an appropriate multivariate logit function to transform the bounded interval responses. The estimated factorial structure closely followed the theoretically assumed structure of the tasks, which varied in their degree of similarity. We did not find a strong overarching general factor, which speaks against a response style influencing interval widths across all tasks and domains. Overall, this indicates that respondents are sensitive to the requirements of different tasks and domains when using interval response formats.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"00131644241283400\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586930/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241283400\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241283400","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在心理研究中,受访者通常会被要求用单一的回答值来回答问题。双区间滑动条(DRS)等区间回答格式是一种有用的替代方法,在这种方法中,受访者为每个项目提供一个具有下限和上限的区间。区间回答可用于测量心理结构,如人格领域中的变异性(如自我评价)、估计任务中的不确定性(如预测)以及判断中的模糊性(如有关言语量词的实际使用)。然而,目前还不清楚被调查者是否对特定任务的要求敏感,也不清楚区间宽度是否真正测量了所关注的结构。为了检验区间宽度的判别效度,我们进行了一项研究,受访者回答了属于人格、估计和判断等领域的七项不同任务的 92 个项目。我们通过拟合探索性和确认性因子模型来研究区间宽度的维度结构,同时使用适当的多元对数函数来转换有界区间的回答。估计的因子结构与理论上假设的任务结构密切相关,而任务的相似程度各不相同。我们并没有发现一个强有力的总体因素,这说明在所有任务和领域中,影响区间宽度的反应风格并不存在。总体而言,这表明受访者在使用间隔回答格式时对不同任务和领域的要求非常敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discriminant Validity of Interval Response Formats: Investigating the Dimensional Structure of Interval Widths.

In psychological research, respondents are usually asked to answer questions with a single response value. A useful alternative are interval response formats like the dual-range slider (DRS) where respondents provide an interval with a lower and an upper bound for each item. Interval responses may be used to measure psychological constructs such as variability in the domain of personality (e.g., self-ratings), uncertainty in estimation tasks (e.g., forecasting), and ambiguity in judgments (e.g., concerning the pragmatic use of verbal quantifiers). However, it is unclear whether respondents are sensitive to the requirements of a particular task and whether interval widths actually measure the constructs of interest. To test the discriminant validity of interval widths, we conducted a study in which respondents answered 92 items belonging to seven different tasks from the domains of personality, estimation, and judgment. We investigated the dimensional structure of interval widths by fitting exploratory and confirmatory factor models while using an appropriate multivariate logit function to transform the bounded interval responses. The estimated factorial structure closely followed the theoretically assumed structure of the tasks, which varied in their degree of similarity. We did not find a strong overarching general factor, which speaks against a response style influencing interval widths across all tasks and domains. Overall, this indicates that respondents are sensitive to the requirements of different tasks and domains when using interval response formats.

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
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
×
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