scholarly journals Assessing the Influence of Reversed Items and Force-Choice on the Work and Meaning Inventory [Evaluación de la influencia de los ítems invertidos y de elección forzosa en el Inventario de trabajo significativo]

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 103
Author(s):  
Maria da Glória Lima Leonardo ◽  
Michelle Morelo Pereira ◽  
Felipe Valentini ◽  
Clarissa Pinto Pizarro de Freitas ◽  
Michael F. Steger
Keyword(s):  
Response Bias ◽  
Choice Model ◽  
Organizational Psychology ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Meaning Of Work ◽  
Positive Organizational Psychology ◽  
Latent Dimension

AbstractResponse biases are issues in inventories in positive organizational psychology. The study aims to control the response bias in the assessment of meaning of work through two methods: reversed key items and forced-choice format. The sample consisted of 351 professionals; women constituted 60.0 % of the sample. The participants answered two versions of the instrument for meaning of work: Likert-type items and forced-choice. For both versions, the unifactorial model was the most appropriate for the data available. The results indicate that the random intercepts model fit the Likert data (CFI = .92), as well as the forced-choice model (CFI = .97). Besides, the latent dimension of the forced-choice version did not correlate with acquiescence index (r < .08; p > .05), and approximately 20 % of the variance of the items might be due to the method (Likert or forced-choice). The present study illustrates the importance of response bias control in self-report instruments. ResumenLos sesgos de respuesta son problemas en los inventarios de la psicología organizacional positiva. El estudio tiene como objetivo controlar el sesgo de respuesta en la eva­luación del trabajo significativo a través de dos métodos: ítems clave invertidos y formato de elección forzosa. La muestra estuvo formada por 351 profesionales; las muje­res constituyeron el 60.0 % de la muestra. Los participan­tes respondieron dos versiones del instrumento de signifi­cado del trabajo: ítems tipo Likert y elección forzosa. Para ambas versiones, el modelo unifactorial fue el más apro­piado para los datos disponibles. Los resultados indican que el modelo de intersecciones aleatorias se ajusta a los datos Likert (CFI = .92), así como al modelo de elección forzada (CFI = .97). Además, la dimensión latente de la versión de elección forzada no se correlacionó con el ín­dice de aquiescencia (r < .08; p > .05), y aproximada­mente el 20 % de la varianza de los ítems podría deberse al método (Likert o forzado). elección). El presente estu­dio ilustra la importancia del control del sesgo de res­puesta en los instrumentos de autoinforme.

Forced-Choice Versus Likert Responses on an Occupational Big Five Questionnaire

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-148
Author(s):  
Luc Watrin ◽  
Mattis Geiger ◽  
Maik Spengler ◽  
Oliver Wilhelm
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Design Strategies ◽  
Applied Assessment ◽  
Response Biases ◽  
Occupational Settings ◽  
Potential Remedy

Abstract. Conventional self-report measures are prone to response biases, which distort measurement in any applied assessment. The forced-choice (FC) format was proposed as a potential remedy for these biases. The purpose of these studies was to develop and evaluate a FC questionnaire for the occupational context based on the five factor model of personality. A single-stimulus Likert questionnaire was contextualized for occupational settings and psychometrically optimized in Study 1 ( N = 401). Considering optimal design strategies, we subsequently used this questionnaire to construct and validate a FC questionnaire in Study 2 ( N = 517). Methodological add-ons to established approaches were applied to achieve decent confirmatory model fit. The new questionnaire shows good psychometric qualities and strong validity. We make suggestions for further applications and studies.

From Bi-Dimensionality to Uni-Dimensionality in Self-Report Questionnaires

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjarne Schmalbach ◽  
Markus Zenger ◽  
Michalis P. Michaelides ◽  
Karin Schermelleh-Engel ◽  
Andreas Hinz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Self Report ◽  
External Criterion ◽  
Common Factor Model ◽  
Random Intercept ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Core Self

Abstract. The common factor model – by far the most widely used model for factor analysis – assumes equal item intercepts across respondents. Due to idiosyncratic ways of understanding and answering items of a questionnaire, this assumption is often violated, leading to an underestimation of model fit. Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006) suggested the introduction of a random intercept into the model to address this concern. The present study applies this method to six established instruments (measuring depression, procrastination, optimism, self-esteem, core self-evaluations, and self-regulation) with ambiguous factor structures, using data from representative general population samples. In testing and comparing three alternative factor models (one-factor model, two-factor model, and one-factor model with a random intercept) and analyzing differential correlational patterns with an external criterion, we empirically demonstrate the random intercept model’s merit, and clarify the factor structure for the above-mentioned questionnaires. In sum, we recommend the random intercept model for cases in which acquiescence is suspected to affect response behavior.

Comparing Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms Reported via Questionnaires Versus a Novel Structured Interview

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Natalie A. Emmert ◽  
Georgia Ristow ◽  
Michael A. McCrea ◽  
Terri A. deRoon-Cassini ◽  
Lindsay D. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Response Bias ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Symptom Reporting ◽  
Clinical Interviews

Abstract Objective: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) symptoms are typically assessed via questionnaires in research, yet questionnaires may be more prone to biases than direct clinical interviews. We compared mTBI symptoms reported on two widely used self-report inventories and the novel Structured Interview of TBI Symptoms (SITS). Second, we explored the association between acquiescence response bias and symptom reporting across modes of assessment. Method: Level 1 trauma center patients with mTBI (N = 73) were recruited within 2 weeks of injury, assessed at 3 months post-TBI, and produced nonacquiescent profiles. Assessments collected included the SITS (comprising open-ended and closed-ended questions), Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), Sport Concussion Assessment Tool-3 (SCAT-3) symptom checklist, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) scale. Results: Current mTBI symptom burden and individual symptom endorsement were highly concordant between SITS closed-ended questions, the RPQ, and the SCAT-3. Within the SITS, participants reported significantly fewer mTBI symptoms to open-ended as compared to later closed-ended questions, and this difference was weakly correlated with TRIN-r. Symptom scales were weakly associated with TRIN-r. Conclusions: mTBI symptom reporting varies primarily by whether questioning is open- vs. closed-ended but not by mode of assessment (interview, questionnaire). Acquiescence response bias appears to play a measurable but small role in mTBI symptom reporting overall and the degree to which participants report more symptoms to closed- than open-ended questioning. These findings have important implications for mTBI research and support the validity of widely used TBI symptom inventories.

scholarly journals Pre-print #3

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Samuel Schwarzkopf ◽  
Nonie J Finlayson ◽  
Benjamin de Haas
Keyword(s):  
Response Bias ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Perceptual Bias ◽  
Confounding Factors ◽  
Decision Criteria ◽  
Response Modality ◽  
Multiple Alternative ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Response Biases ◽  
Perceptual Factors

Perceptual bias is inherent to all our senses, particularly in the form of visual illusionsand aftereffects. However, many experiments measuring perceptual biases may besusceptible to non-perceptual factors, such as response bias and decision criteria. Here wequantify how robust Multiple Alternative Perceptual Search (MAPS) is for disentanglingestimates of perceptual biases from these confounding factors. First our results show thatwhile there are considerable response biases in our four-alternative forced choice design,these are unrelated to perceptual biases estimates, and these response biases are notproduced by the response modality (keyboard versus mouse). We also show that perceptualbias estimates are reduced when feedback is given on each trial, likely due to feedbackenabling observers to partially (and actively) correct for perceptual biases. However, thisdoes not impact the reliability with which MAPS detects the presence of perceptual biases.Finally, our results show that MAPS can detect actual perceptual biases and is not adecisional bias towards choosing the target in the middle of the candidate stimulusdistribution. In summary, researchers conducting a MAPS experiment should use a constantreference stimulus, but consider varying the mean of the candidate distribution. Ideally,they should not employ trial-wise feedback if the magnitude of perceptual biases is ofinterest.

scholarly journals Social desirability and cynicism biases in CSR surveys: an empirical study of hotels

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-588
Author(s):  
Henri Kuokkanen ◽  
William Sun
Keyword(s):  
Response Bias ◽  
Social Desirability ◽  
Purchase Intention ◽  
Choice Model ◽  
Tourism Industry ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Hotel Managers

PurposePrevious studies support the notion that corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives can have a positive effect on customers in the hospitality and tourism industry. However, most of these studies have ignored response biases and none have incorporated them into their analyses numerically. This study aims at closing this research gap.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilized a hybrid choice model to test for the hypothesized effects of social desirability (SD) and cynicism biases on reported purchase intention. The authors further compared the results with those of analyses that ignore these biases to demonstrate their distorting influence.FindingsThe results indicate that SD and cynicism biases have a moderating effect on reported purchase intention. Older generations and frequent travelers seem particularly prone to bias, and the biases have a distorting effect on the overall survey results.Research limitations/implicationsTraditional analyses that exclude biases, incorrectly, suggest several aspects of CSR that are significant (or insignificant) to purchase intention, provide unreliable results. The authors did not generalize bias-prone respondent segments but urge future research to investigate this.Practical implicationsHotel managers aspiring to gain competitive advantage through CSR investment must consider biases in their market research. Otherwise, they risk developing CSR initiatives that do not instigate positive customer behaviors, leading to the failure of the investment.Originality/valueThe authors quantified SD and cynicism as significant causes of response bias, which distorts survey results. Previous studies have conceptualized SD without quantifying its impact, while cynicism has been identified as a novel source of bias in the industry. This study further introduces hybrid choice modeling as a novel approach to address response bias that could extend itself beyond the industry studied here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document