Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584060›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Examining a Dutch short form of The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Version 6: comparing polytomous and dichotomous scoring methods in a multidimensional framework.

Mirthe G C Noteborn, Martin Hildebrand, Jelle J Sijtsema, Stefan Bogaerts, Jaap J A Denissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Mirthe G C NotebornDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Martin HildebrandPrivate Practice, De Bilt, Netherlands.
Jelle J SijtsemaDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Stefan BogaertsDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Jaap J A DenissenDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The 40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Version 6 (BIDR) is a widely used tool to measure two components of social desirability: Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) and Impression Management (IM). In three studies, we aimed to create and validate a short form of the Dutch language version of the 40-item BIDR. Methods: In Study 1 (general population sample Results: This yielded a short form containing 10 SDE and 10 IM dichotomously scored items (BIDR-D20). While results indicated a loss of information compared to the original version, the overall psychometric qualities were equal to or sometimes better compared to the BIDR (Version 6). Across studies, dichotomous scoring was generally better than polytomous scoring in terms of model fit, estimated IRT parameters, and internal consistency. Both forms correlated with self-reported aggression, but SDE and IM failed to detect response bias in the current sample. Conclusion: The BIDR-D20 could be a worthy replacement for the 40-item BIDR (Version 6), with the same properties and less time-consuming. However, more research is needed to establish the short measure's predictive validity as a response bias.

Indexed as

BIDRimpression managementmultidimensional item response theoryself-deceptive enhancementsocially desirable responding

Identifiers

PMID40584060
PMCPMC12202607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.