Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36131197›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Using Mokken scaling techniques to explore carelessness in survey research.

Stefanie Wind, Yurou Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stefanie WindThe University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. swind@ua.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1599-375X
Yurou WangEducational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counselin, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Careless responding is a pervasive issue that impacts the interpretation and use of responses from survey instruments. Researchers have proposed numerous useful methods for detecting carelessness in survey research, including relatively simple summary statistics such as the frequency of adjacent responses in the same category (e.g., "long-string" analysis) and outlier statistics (e.g., Mahalanobis distance). Researchers have also used methods based on item response theory (IRT) models to identify examinees whose response patterns are unexpected given item parameters. However, researchers have not fully considered the use of nonparametric IRT methods based on Mokken scale analysis (MSA) to detect carelessness in survey research. MSA is a promising framework in which to consider participant carelessness because it is well suited to contexts in which parametric IRT models may not be appropriate, while still maintaining a focus on fundamental measurement requirements. We used a real data analysis and a simulation study to examine the sensitivity of MSA indicators of response quality to examinee carelessness and compared the results to those from standalone indicators. We also examined the impact of carelessness on the sensitivity of MSA item quality indicators. Numeric and graphical indicators of response quality from MSA indicators were sensitive to examinee carelessness. Graphical displays of nonparametric person response functions (PRFs) provided supplementary insight that can alert researchers to potentially problematic responses. Our results also indicated that MSA indicators of item quality are robust to the presence of participant carelessness. We consider the implications of our findings for research and practice.

Indexed as

Research DesignComputer SimulationHumansPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesCarelessnessItem response theoryMokken scale analysisSurvey research

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.