Erratum to: Response scale transfer for visual speed

Abstract. Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) denotes the tendency to fear anxiety-related sensations. Trait AS is an established risk factor for anxiety pathology. The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) is a widely used measure of AS and its three most robust dimensions with well-established construct validity. At present, the dimensional conceptualization of AS, and thus, the construct validity of the ASI-3 is challenged. A latent class structure with two distinct and qualitatively different forms, an adaptive form (normative AS) and a maladaptive form (AS taxon, predisposing for anxiety pathology) was postulated. Item Response Theory (IRT) models were applied to item-level data of the ASI-3 in an attempt to replicate previous findings in a large nonclinical sample (N = 2,603) and to examine possible interpretations for the latent discontinuity observed. Two latent classes with a pattern of distinct responses to ASI-3 items were found. However, classes were indicative of participant’s differential use of the response scale (midpoint and extreme response style) rather than differing in AS content (adaptive and maladaptive AS forms). A dimensional structure of AS and the construct validity of the ASI-3 was supported.

Download Full-text

Positive First or Negative First?

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-2241/a000013 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 118-127 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Dagmar Krebs ◽

Juergen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik

Keyword(s):

Job Characteristics ◽

Two Dimensions ◽

Response Behavior ◽

Point Scale ◽

Response Scale ◽

Job Motivation ◽

Ballot Design ◽

Subjective Importance ◽

Scale Format ◽

Scale Types

To examine whether starting a response scale with the positive or the negative categories affects response behavior, a split-ballot design using reverse forms of an 8-point scale assessing the subjective importance of job characteristics was used. Response behavior varied according to the scale format employed. Responses were more positive on the scale starting with the category “very important” (split 2). By contrast, the scale starting with the category “not at all important” (split 1) did not elicit more negative responses, but rather less positive ones. However, differences in response behavior did not systematically reflect the direction of the respective scales. Starting with the differences between the two split versions, the factorial structure of indicators assessing two dimensions of job motivation was tested for each scale type separately and then for both scale types simultaneously. Finally, models placing increasingly severe equality constraints on both scale types were tested. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and desiderata for further research.

Download Full-text