ArticleResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP2022
Developing a short screener for acquiescent respondents.
Article in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and pilot multicentre evaluation of a patient-reported experience measure for acute ischemic stroke care.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- An Ounce of Prevention: Using Conversational Interviewing and Avoiding Agreement Response Scales to Prevent Acquiescence.Quality & quantity · 2024Article
- Individual-Level Cultural Factors and Use of Survey Response Styles among Latino Survey Respondents.Hispanic journal of behavioral sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcquiescent response style (ARS) refers to survey respondents' tendency to choose response categories agreeing to questions regardless of their content and is hypothesized as a stable respondent trait. While what underlies acquiescence is debatable, the effect of ARS on measurement is clear: bias through artificially increased agreement ratings. With certain population subgroups (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities in the U.S.) are associated with systemically higher ARS, it causes concerns for research involving those groups. For this reason, it may be necessary to classify respondents as acquiescers or a nonacquiescers, which allows independent analysis or accounting for this stylistic artifact. However, this classification is challenging, because ARS is latent, observed only as a by-product of collected data.
objectivesTo propose a screener that identifies respondents as acquiescers.
methodsWith survey data collected for ARS research, various ARS classification methods were compared for validity as well as implementation practicality.
resultsThe majority of respondents was classified consistently into acquiescers or nonacquiescers under various classification methods.
conclusionsWe propose a method based on illogical responses given to two balanced, theoretically distant multi-item measurement scales as a screener.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.