Literature DB >> 29589333

Effect of response format on cognitive reflection: Validating a two- and four-option multiple choice question version of the Cognitive Reflection Test.

Miroslav Sirota1, Marie Juanchich2.   

Abstract

The Cognitive Reflection Test, measuring intuition inhibition and cognitive reflection, has become extremely popular because it reliably predicts reasoning performance, decision-making, and beliefs. Across studies, the response format of CRT items sometimes differs, based on the assumed construct equivalence of tests with open-ended versus multiple-choice items (the equivalence hypothesis). Evidence and theoretical reasons, however, suggest that the cognitive processes measured by these response formats and their associated performances might differ (the nonequivalence hypothesis). We tested the two hypotheses experimentally by assessing the performance in tests with different response formats and by comparing their predictive and construct validity. In a between-subjects experiment (n = 452), participants answered stem-equivalent CRT items in an open-ended, a two-option, or a four-option response format and then completed tasks on belief bias, denominator neglect, and paranormal beliefs (benchmark indicators of predictive validity), as well as on actively open-minded thinking and numeracy (benchmark indicators of construct validity). We found no significant differences between the three response formats in the numbers of correct responses, the numbers of intuitive responses (with the exception of the two-option version, which had a higher number than the other tests), and the correlational patterns of the indicators of predictive and construct validity. All three test versions were similarly reliable, but the multiple-choice formats were completed more quickly. We speculate that the specific nature of the CRT items helps build construct equivalence among the different response formats. We recommend using the validated multiple-choice version of the CRT presented here, particularly the four-option CRT, for practical and methodological reasons. Supplementary materials and data are available at https://osf.io/mzhyc/ .

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive Reflection Test; Cognitive reflection; Construct equivalence; Multiple-choice format; Response formats

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29589333     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1029-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  7 in total

1.  How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.

Authors:  Ozan Isler; Onurcan Yilmaz
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-10-17

2.  Are COVID-19 conspiracies a threat to public health? Psychological characteristics and health protective behaviours of believers.

Authors:  Marie Juanchich; Miroslav Sirota; Daniel Jolles; Lilith A Whiley
Journal:  Eur J Soc Psychol       Date:  2022-01-06

3.  Pandemic buying: Testing a psychological model of over-purchasing and panic buying using data from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Richard P Bentall; Alex Lloyd; Kate Bennett; Ryan McKay; Liam Mason; Jamie Murphy; Orla McBride; Todd K Hartman; Jilly Gibson-Miller; Liat Levita; Anton P Martinez; Thomas V A Stocks; Sarah Butter; Frédérique Vallières; Philip Hyland; Thanos Karatzias; Mark Shevlin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Jamie Murphy; Frédérique Vallières; Richard P Bentall; Mark Shevlin; Orla McBride; Todd K Hartman; Ryan McKay; Kate Bennett; Liam Mason; Jilly Gibson-Miller; Liat Levita; Anton P Martinez; Thomas V A Stocks; Thanos Karatzias; Philip Hyland
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Why conspiracy theorists are not always paranoid: Conspiracy theories and paranoia form separate factors with distinct psychological predictors.

Authors:  Azzam Alsuhibani; Mark Shevlin; Daniel Freeman; Bryony Sheaves; Richard P Bentall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale.

Authors:  Marco Meyer; Mark Alfano; Boudewijn de Bruin
Journal:  Rev Philos Psychol       Date:  2021-06-25

7.  To comply or not comply? A latent profile analysis of behaviours and attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Sabina Kleitman; Dayna J Fullerton; Lisa M Zhang; Matthew D Blanchard; Jihyun Lee; Lazar Stankov; Valerie Thompson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.