ArticleScientific reports2023
Using heterogeneous sources of data and interpretability of prediction models to explain the characteristics of careless respondents in survey data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior to further processing, completed questionnaires must be screened for the presence of careless respondents. Different people will respond to surveys in different ways. Some take the easy path and fill out the survey carelessly. The proportion of careless respondents determines the survey's quality. As a result, identifying careless respondents is critical for the quality of obtained results. This study aims to explore the characteristics of careless respondents in survey data and evaluate the predictive power and interpretability of different types of data and indices of careless responding. The research question focuses on understanding the behavior of careless respondents and determining the effectiveness of various data sources in predicting their responses. Data from a three-month web-based survey on participants' personality traits such as honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience was used in this study. Data for this study was taken from Schroeders et al.. The gradient boosting machine-based prediction model uses data from the answers, time spent for answering, demographic information on the respondents as well as some indices of careless responding from all three types of data. Prediction models were evaluated with tenfold cross-validation repeated a hundred times. Prediction models were compared based on balanced accuracy. Models' explanations were provided with Shapley values. Compared with existing work, data fusion from multiple types of information had no noticeable effect on the performance of the gradient boosting machine model. Variables such as "I would never take a bribe, even if it was a lot", average longstring, and total intra-individual response variability were found to be useful in distinguishing careless respondents. However, variables like "I would be tempted to use counterfeit money if I could get away with it" and intra-individual response variability of the first section of a survey showed limited effectiveness. Additionally, this study indicated that, whereas the psychometric synonym score has an immediate effect and is designed with the goal of identifying careless respondents when combined with other variables, it is not necessarily the optimal choice for fitting a gradient boosting machine model.
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.