Literature DB >> 25495093

Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data.

Jason L Huang1, Mengqiao Liu1, Nathan A Bowling2.   

Abstract

Insufficient effort responding (IER; Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012) to surveys has largely been assumed to be a source of random measurement error that attenuates associations between substantive measures. The current article, however, illustrates how and when the presence of IER can produce a systematic bias that inflates observed correlations between substantive measures. Noting that inattentive responses as a whole generally congregate around the midpoint of a Likert scale, we propose that Mattentive, defined as the mean score of attentive respondents on a substantive measure, will be negatively related to IER's confounding effect on substantive measures (i.e., correlations between IER and a given substantive measure will become less positive [or more negative] as Mattentive increases). Results from a personality questionnaire (Study 1) and a simulation (Study 2) consistently support the hypothesized confounding influence of IER. Using an employee sample (Study 3), we demonstrated how IER can confound bivariate relationships between substantive measures. Together, these studies indicate that IER can inflate the strength of observed relationships when scale means depart from the scale midpoints, resulting in an inflated Type I error rate. This challenges the traditional view that IER attenuates observed bivariate correlations. These findings highlight situations where IER may be a methodological nuisance, while underscoring the need for survey administrators and researchers to deter and detect IER in surveys. The current article serves as a wake-up call for researchers and practitioners to more closely examine IER in their data. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25495093     DOI: 10.1037/a0038510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9010


  18 in total

1.  Methods of Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparisons and Practical Recommendations.

Authors:  Maxwell Hong; Jeffrey T Steedle; Ying Cheng
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.821

2.  Detecting random responders with infrequency scales using an error-balancing threshold.

Authors:  Dale S Kim; Connor J McCabe; Brianna L Yamasaki; Kristine A Louie; Kevin M King
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2018-10

3.  Studies in the Mentality of Literates: 3. Conceptual Structure and Nonsense of Personality Testing.

Authors:  Aaro Toomela; Delma Barros Filho; Ana Cecília S Bastos; Antonio Marcos Chaves; Marilena Ristum; Sara Santos Chaves; Soraya Jesus Salomão; Aleksander Pulver
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 1.156

4.  Reliability of the empathy selection task, a novel behavioral measure of empathy avoidance.

Authors:  Amanda M Ferguson; Michael Inzlicht
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-08-22

5.  Quality of Survey Responses at Older Ages Predicts Cognitive Decline and Mortality Risk.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Doerte U Junghaenel; Erik Meijer; Elizabeth M Zelinski; Haomiao Jin; Pey-Jiuan Lee; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Innov Aging       Date:  2022-04-20

6.  Dismissing "Don't Know" Responses to Perceived Risk Survey Items Threatens the Validity of Theoretical and Empirical Behavior-Change Research.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Heather Orom
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-11-23

7.  Random responses inflate statistical estimates in heavily skewed addictions data.

Authors:  Kevin M King; Dale S Kim; Connor J McCabe
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 4.492

8.  A Response-Time-Based Latent Response Mixture Model for Identifying and Modeling Careless and Insufficient Effort Responding in Survey Data.

Authors:  Esther Ulitzsch; Steffi Pohl; Lale Khorramdel; Ulf Kroehne; Matthias von Davier
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 2.290

Review 9.  Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations.

Authors:  Melissa G Keith; Louis Tay; Peter D Harms
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-08

10.  Cross-cultural adjustment to the United States: the role of contextualized extraversion change.

Authors:  Mengqiao Liu; Jason L Huang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.