ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Posterior predictive checks for the detection of extreme response style.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Extreme Is It Anyways?: An Empirical Investigation Into the Prevalence and Strength of Extreme Response Style.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
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
Extreme response style (ERS), the tendency of participants to select extreme item categories regardless of the item content, has frequently been found to decrease the validity of Likert-type questionnaire results (e.g., Moors, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 271-298, 2012). For this reason, detecting ERS at both the group and individual levels is of paramount importance. While various approaches to detecting ERS exist, these may conflate ERS with the trait of interest, require additional questionnaires to be administered, or require the use of mixture or multidimensional IRT models. As an alternative approach to detecting ERS, Bayesian posterior predictive checks (PPCs) may be a viable option. Posterior predictive checking offers a highly customizable framework for detecting model misfit, which can be directly applied to frequently used unidimensional IRT models. Critically, the use of PPCs to detect ERS does not require strong assumptions regarding the nature of ERS, such as ERS being a continuous dimension or a categorical trait. In this paper, we thus apply PPCs to a generalized partial credit model to detect model misfit related to ERS on both the group and person levels. We propose various possible PPCs tailored to ERS, which are illustrated in an empirical example, and their performance in detecting ERS is examined under various conditions. Suggestions for practical applications are provided, and avenues for future research are explored.
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.