Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies


Goldammer, Philippe; Annen, Hubert; Stöckli, Peter Lucas; Jonas, Klaus (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 31(4):101384.

Abstract

Undetected carelessly given responses in survey data diminish the credibility of study findings. We therefore examined two pressing issues: the accuracy of popular screening indices, and the impact of careless responding on the psychometric properties of constructs. In an experiment in Study 1, induced response sets were used to examine the effectiveness of seven indices in detecting careless responding. Response time per item, personal reliability, psychometric synonyms, psychometric antonyms, and Mahalanobis distance were effective. However, the longstring and intra-individual response variability were ineffective. In Study 2, the effects of careless responding were examined under normal study conditions. In this sample, 33% of the participants were identified as careless responders. Careless responding inflated item variances, biased item means towards the scale midpoint, increased residual variances of construct indicators, and reduced the within-group agreement on consensus-based constructs. To enhance the credibility of findings, therefore, screenings for careless responding should be applied regularly.

Abstract

Undetected carelessly given responses in survey data diminish the credibility of study findings. We therefore examined two pressing issues: the accuracy of popular screening indices, and the impact of careless responding on the psychometric properties of constructs. In an experiment in Study 1, induced response sets were used to examine the effectiveness of seven indices in detecting careless responding. Response time per item, personal reliability, psychometric synonyms, psychometric antonyms, and Mahalanobis distance were effective. However, the longstring and intra-individual response variability were ineffective. In Study 2, the effects of careless responding were examined under normal study conditions. In this sample, 33% of the participants were identified as careless responders. Careless responding inflated item variances, biased item means towards the scale midpoint, increased residual variances of construct indicators, and reduced the within-group agreement on consensus-based constructs. To enhance the credibility of findings, therefore, screenings for careless responding should be applied regularly.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Scopus Subject Areas:Social Sciences & Humanities > Business and International Management
Social Sciences & Humanities > Applied Psychology
Social Sciences & Humanities > Sociology and Political Science
Social Sciences & Humanities > Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Uncontrolled Keywords:Applied Psychology, Business and International Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science
Language:English
Date:1 August 2020
Deposited On:30 Jan 2020 10:04
Last Modified:30 Jul 2020 01:04
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:1048-9843
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library