ArticleBehavior research methods2024
A comparison of conventional and resampled personal reliability in detecting careless responding.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting careless responding in survey data is important to ensure the credibility of study findings. Of several available detection methods, personal reliability (PR) is one of the best-performing indices. Curran, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19, (2016) proposed a resampled version of personal reliability (RPR). Compared to the conventional PR or even-odd consistency, in which just one set of scale halves is used, RPR is based on repeated calculation of PR across several randomly rearranged sets of scale halves. RPR should therefore be less affected than PR by random errors that may occur when a specific set of scale half pairings is used for the PR calculation. In theory, RPR should outperform PR, but it remains unclear whether it in fact does, and under what conditions the potential gain in detection accuracy is the most pronounced. We conducted two studies: a simulation study examined the performance of the conventional PR and RPR in detecting simulated careless responding, and a real data example study analyzed their performance when detecting human-generated careless responding. In both studies, RPR turned out to be a significantly better careless response indicator than PR. The results also revealed that using 25 resamples for the RPR computation is sufficient to obtain the expected gain in detection accuracy over the conventional PR. We therefore recommend using RPR instead of the conventional PR when screening questionnaire data for careless responding.
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.