ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Accounting for careless and insufficient effort responding in large-scale survey data-development, evaluation, and application of a screen-time-based weighting procedure.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for response styles in rating data using IRT and IRTree models: A tutorial in R with applications to self-reported metacognitive competence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Understanding when mixture models effectively identify careless responding: Simulation and validity evidence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Dependent latent class partial credit models for careless and insufficient effort responding in online survey data.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Investigating dynamics in attentive and inattentive responding together with their contextual correlates using a novel mixture IRT model for intensive longitudinal data.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2026Article
- A multimodal Bayesian network for symptom-level depression and anxiety prediction from voice and speech data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Disentangling individual differences in cognitive response mechanisms for rating scale items: A flexible-mixture multidimensional IRTree approach.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Aberrant Responding in Hypothesis Testing: A Threat to Validity or Source of Insight?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detecting inattentive respondents by machine learning: A generic technique that substitutes for the directed questions scale and compensates for its shortcomings.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Careless and insufficient effort responding (C/IER) poses a major threat to the quality of large-scale survey data. Traditional indicator-based procedures for its detection are limited in that they are only sensitive to specific types of C/IER behavior, such as straight lining or rapid responding, rely on arbitrary threshold settings, and do not allow taking the uncertainty of C/IER classification into account. Overcoming these limitations, we develop a two-step screen-time-based weighting procedure for computer-administered surveys. The procedure allows considering the uncertainty in C/IER identification, is agnostic towards the specific types of C/IE response patterns, and can feasibly be integrated with common analysis workflows for large-scale survey data. In Step 1, we draw on mixture modeling to identify subcomponents of log screen time distributions presumably stemming from C/IER. In Step 2, the analysis model of choice is applied to item response data, with respondents' posterior class probabilities being employed to downweigh response patterns according to their probability of stemming from C/IER. We illustrate the approach on a sample of more than 400,000 respondents being administered 48 scales of the PISA 2018 background questionnaire. We gather supporting validity evidence by investigating relationships between C/IER proportions and screen characteristics that entail higher cognitive burden, such as screen position and text length, relating identified C/IER proportions to other indicators of C/IER as well as by investigating rank-order consistency in C/IER behavior across screens. Finally, in a re-analysis of the PISA 2018 background questionnaire data, we investigate the impact of the C/IER adjustments on country-level comparisons.
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.