Publication: A comparison of conventional and resampled personal reliability in detecting careless responding
A comparison of conventional and resampled personal reliability in detecting careless responding
Date
Date
Date
Citations
Goldammer, P., Stöckli, P. L., Annen, H., & Schmitz-Wilhelmy, A. (2024). A comparison of conventional and resampled personal reliability in detecting careless responding. Behavior Research Methods, 56(8), 8831–8851. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02506-0
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Detecting careless responding in survey data is important to ensure the credibility of study findings. Of several available detection methods, personal reliability (PR) is one of the best-performing indices. Curran, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19, (2016) proposed a resampled version of personal reliability (RPR). Compared to the conventional PR or even–odd consistency, in which just one set of scale halves is used, RPR is based on repeated calculation of PR across several randomly rearranged sets of scale halves.
Metrics
Citations
Additional indexing
Creators (Authors)
- Goldammer, Philippe
- Stöckli, Peter Lucas
- Annen, Hubert
Volume
Volume
Volume
Number
Number
Number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page end
Page end
Page end
Item Type
Item Type
Item Type
In collections
Keywords
Language
Language
Language
Publication date
Publication date
Publication date
Date available
Date available
Date available
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
OA Status
OA Status
OA Status
Free Access at
Free Access at
Free Access at
Publisher DOI
Metrics
Citations
Citations
Goldammer, P., Stöckli, P. L., Annen, H., & Schmitz-Wilhelmy, A. (2024). A comparison of conventional and resampled personal reliability in detecting careless responding. Behavior Research Methods, 56(8), 8831–8851. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02506-0
