Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Educational Research / 2016 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 64

Detecting Careless Responses to Self-Reported Questionnaires

Sayfa
0–0
Yayın Tarihi
2016-07-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Keywords: Careless response, Questionnaire development, Random response, Goodness-of-fit.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Problem Statement: The use of self-report questionnaires may lead to biases such as careless responses that distort the research outcomes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:It is hypothesized that there is a significant difference of RGF between careless responses and true responses and that RGF of careless responses is higher than RGF for true responses.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Keywords: Careless response, Questionnaire development, Random response, Goodness-of-fit.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Problem Statement: The use of self-report questionnaires may lead to biases such as careless responses that distort the research outcomes. Early detection of careless responses in self-report questionnaires may reduce error, but little guidance exists in the literature regarding techniques for detecting such careless or random responses in self-report questionnaires. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the respondent‟s goodness-of-fit test score (RGF) can be used to indicate careless responses in completing self-report questionnaires. It is hypothesized that there is a significant difference of RGF between careless responses and true responses and that RGF of careless responses is higher than RGF for true responses. Method: An experimental research design that made use of a self-reported questionnaire was conducted with 205 respondents divided into two groups. The first group responded truthfully to the questionnaire while the second group responded carelessly to the questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire had been tested. One hundred and eighty five respondents were selected as the group of true responses, while another 20 respondents comprised the group of careless responses. T-test of independent sample was used to evaluate the different RGF among true responses and careless responses. Findings: After comparing the mean scores of RGF between careless responses and true responses, a significant difference was found. The frequency distribution of true responses tends to be normally distributed while the existence of careless responses creates a skewed distribution to the right. The RGF of careless responses is higher than the RGF of true responses. Conclusion and Recommendations: RGF may be used as an indicator of respondent‟s careless responses in self-report questionnaires in which more accurate data are expected. Social science research that makes use of self-report questionnaire in measuring affective domain may compute RGF to determine whether careless responses exist. Keywords: Careless response, Questionnaire development, Random response, Goodness-of-fit.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KOUNTUR, R. (2016). Detecting Careless Responses to Self-Reported Questionnaires. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 64, 0–0. https://ajindex.com/articles/30874

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (9)

  1. Begin, G., Boivin, M. & Bellerose, J. (1979). Sensitive data collection through the random response technique: Some improvements. Journal of Psychology. (1), 53-65.
  2. Castro, R. (2013). Inconsistent respondents and sensitive questions. Field Methods. (3), 283-298. doi: 10.1177/1525822X12466988 Conijn, J.M., Emons, W.H.M., Van Assen, M.A.L.M., Pedersen, S.S., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). Explanatory, multilevel person-fit analysis of response consistency on the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, (5), 692-718.
  3. Crede, M. (2010). Random responding as a threat to the validity of effect size estimates in correlational research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (4), 596-612.
  4. Crino, M.D. (1985). The random response technique as an indicator of questionnaire item social desirability/personal sensitivity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 453-468.
  5. Godinho, A., Kushnir, V., & Cunningham, J.A. (2016). Unfaithful findings: Identifying careless responding in addictions research. Addiction, 111(6), 955- Keeley, J.W., Webb, C., Peterson, D., Roussin, L., & Flanagan, E.H. (2016). Development of a response inconsistency scale for the personality inventory for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(4), 351-359.
  6. Escobal, J., & Benites, S. (2013). PDAs in socio-economic surveys: instrument bias, surveyor bias or both? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, (1), 47-63. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.648420 Garcia, A.A. (2011). Cognitive interviews to test and refine questionnaires. Public Health Nursing, 28(5), 444-450. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2010.00938.x Johnson, T. P., & Wislar, J. S. (2012). Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(17), 1805-1806.
  7. Keller, G. & Warrack, B. (2016). Statistics for management and economics, 9th ed. Australia: Thomson. Lara, D., Garcia, S.G., Ellertson, C., Camlin, C. & Suarez, J. (2006). The measure of induced abortion levels in Mexico using random response technique. Sociaological Method & Research, 35(2), 279-301.
  8. Meade, A.W., & Craig, S.B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437-455.
  9. Meyer, J.F., Fraust, K.A., Faust, D., Baker, A.M., & Cook, N.E. (2013). Careless and random responding on clinical and research measures in the addictions: A concerning problem and investigation of their detection. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(3), 292-306