ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Detecting non-content-based response styles in survey data: An application of mixture factor analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disentangling substantive and method variance in mixed-worded scales: An empirical application of the random intercept item factor analysis (RIIFA).Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Discriminating Between Attribute, Item-Position, and Wording Effects by the Congeneric and Tau-Equivalent Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
- An Experimental Study on the Impact of Survey Stakes on Response Inconsistency in Mixed-Worded Scales.Educational and psychological measurement · 2025Article
- A solution to the pervasive problem of response bias in self-reports.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is common for some participants in self-report surveys to be careless, inattentive, or lacking in effort. Data quality can be severely compromised by responses that are not based on item content (non-content-based [nCB] responses), leading to strong biases in the results of data analysis and misinterpretation of individual scores. In this study, we propose a specification of factor mixture analysis (FMA) to detect nCB responses. We investigated the usefulness and effectiveness of the FMA model in detecting nCB responses using both simulated data (Study 1) and real data (Study 2). In the first study, FMA showed reasonably robust sensitivity (.60 to .86) and excellent specificity (.96 to .99) on mixed-worded scales, suggesting that FMA had superior properties as a screening tool under different sample conditions. However, FMA performance was poor on scales composed of only positive items because of the difficulty in distinguishing acquiescent patterns from valid responses representing high levels of the trait. In Study 2 (real data), FMA detected a minority of cases (6.5%) with highly anomalous response patterns. Removing these cases resulted in a large increase in the fit of the unidimensional model and a substantial reduction in spurious multidimensionality.
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.