少数不一致的被调查者如何混淆人格调查数据的结构

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
V. Arias, Fernando P. Ponce, A. Martínez-Molina
{"title":"少数不一致的被调查者如何混淆人格调查数据的结构","authors":"V. Arias, Fernando P. Ponce, A. Martínez-Molina","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. In survey data, inconsistent responses due to careless/insufficient effort (C/IE) can lead to problems of replicability and validity. However, data cleaning prior to the main analyses is not yet a standard practice. We investigated the effect of C/IE responses on the structure of personality survey data. For this purpose, we analyzed the structure of the Core-Self Evaluations scale (CSE-S), including the detection of aberrant responses in the study design. While the original theoretical model of the CSE-S assumes that the construct is unidimensional ( Judge et al., 2003 ), recent studies have argued for a multidimensional solution (positive CSE and negative CSE). We hypothesized that this multidimensionality is not substantive but a result of the tendency of C/IE data to generate spurious dimensions. We estimated the confirmatory models before and after removing highly inconsistent response vectors in two independent samples (6% and 4.7%). The analysis of the raw samples clearly favored retaining the two-dimensional model. In contrast, the analysis of the clean datasets suggested the retention of a single factor. A mere 6% C/IE response rate showed enough power to confound the results of the factor analysis. This result suggests that the factor structure of positive and negative CSE factors is spurious, resulting from uncontrolled wording variance produced by a limited proportion of highly inconsistent response vectors. We encourage researchers to include screening for inconsistent responses in their research designs.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How a Few Inconsistent Respondents Can Confound the Structure of Personality Survey Data\",\"authors\":\"V. Arias, Fernando P. Ponce, A. Martínez-Molina\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. In survey data, inconsistent responses due to careless/insufficient effort (C/IE) can lead to problems of replicability and validity. However, data cleaning prior to the main analyses is not yet a standard practice. We investigated the effect of C/IE responses on the structure of personality survey data. For this purpose, we analyzed the structure of the Core-Self Evaluations scale (CSE-S), including the detection of aberrant responses in the study design. While the original theoretical model of the CSE-S assumes that the construct is unidimensional ( Judge et al., 2003 ), recent studies have argued for a multidimensional solution (positive CSE and negative CSE). We hypothesized that this multidimensionality is not substantive but a result of the tendency of C/IE data to generate spurious dimensions. We estimated the confirmatory models before and after removing highly inconsistent response vectors in two independent samples (6% and 4.7%). The analysis of the raw samples clearly favored retaining the two-dimensional model. In contrast, the analysis of the clean datasets suggested the retention of a single factor. A mere 6% C/IE response rate showed enough power to confound the results of the factor analysis. This result suggests that the factor structure of positive and negative CSE factors is spurious, resulting from uncontrolled wording variance produced by a limited proportion of highly inconsistent response vectors. We encourage researchers to include screening for inconsistent responses in their research designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-21\",\"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/a000719\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000719","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

摘要

摘要在调查数据中,由于粗心/不充分的努力(C/IE)而导致的不一致的回答可能导致可复制性和有效性的问题。然而,在主要分析之前进行数据清理还不是一种标准做法。我们研究了C/IE反应对人格调查数据结构的影响。为此,我们分析了核心自我评价量表(CSE-S)的结构,包括研究设计中异常反应的检测。虽然CSE- s的原始理论模型假设结构是一维的(Judge等人,2003),但最近的研究已经提出了多维的解决方案(积极的CSE和消极的CSE)。我们假设这种多维性不是实质性的,而是C/IE数据产生虚假维度的趋势的结果。我们对两个独立样本(6%和4.7%)去除高度不一致的响应向量前后的验证模型进行了估计。对原始样品的分析显然倾向于保留二维模型。相比之下,对干净数据集的分析表明保留了单一因素。仅6%的C/IE应答率就足以混淆因子分析的结果。这一结果表明,正面和负面CSE因素的因素结构是虚假的,这是由有限比例的高度不一致的响应向量产生的不受控制的措辞方差造成的。我们鼓励研究人员在他们的研究设计中包括对不一致反应的筛选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How a Few Inconsistent Respondents Can Confound the Structure of Personality Survey Data
Abstract. In survey data, inconsistent responses due to careless/insufficient effort (C/IE) can lead to problems of replicability and validity. However, data cleaning prior to the main analyses is not yet a standard practice. We investigated the effect of C/IE responses on the structure of personality survey data. For this purpose, we analyzed the structure of the Core-Self Evaluations scale (CSE-S), including the detection of aberrant responses in the study design. While the original theoretical model of the CSE-S assumes that the construct is unidimensional ( Judge et al., 2003 ), recent studies have argued for a multidimensional solution (positive CSE and negative CSE). We hypothesized that this multidimensionality is not substantive but a result of the tendency of C/IE data to generate spurious dimensions. We estimated the confirmatory models before and after removing highly inconsistent response vectors in two independent samples (6% and 4.7%). The analysis of the raw samples clearly favored retaining the two-dimensional model. In contrast, the analysis of the clean datasets suggested the retention of a single factor. A mere 6% C/IE response rate showed enough power to confound the results of the factor analysis. This result suggests that the factor structure of positive and negative CSE factors is spurious, resulting from uncontrolled wording variance produced by a limited proportion of highly inconsistent response vectors. We encourage researchers to include screening for inconsistent responses in their research designs.
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
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