Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41190112›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Advancing the psychometrics of reverse-keyed items: enriching cognitive theory by a logical and linguistic perspective.

David Elek, Hynek Cígler, David J Grüning, Stanislav Ježek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

David ElekPsychology Research Institute, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Hynek CíglerPsychology Research Institute, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
David J GrüningGESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.
Stanislav JežekPsychology Research Institute, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inclusion of reverse-keyed items in a questionnaire usually impacts its factor structure and reliability. Therefore, their presence or absence also affects measurement validity, yet a clear consensus on their use is missing. In this paper, we provide an overview of the literature on the use of reverse-keyed items. We outline the typical arguments for and against their use, along with the cognitive explanatory framework commonly used to account for the associated issues. We further argue that while the cognitive model of responding is theoretically meaningful, it cannot, on its own, identify specific error sources from reverse-keyed item sets, and that issue lies in the implicit assumption regarding how reverse-keyed items should function. Furthermore, we note that literature on reverse-keyed items is at an impasse, with conflicting recommendations and inconclusive results. As a solution, we introduce a logical and linguistic perspective to advance our understanding of reverse-keyed items. This perspective allows researchers to understand that response inconsistencies in a statistical model do not necessarily indicate logically inconsistent answers from the respondent. Enriching the cognitive model with a linguistic perspective, which has been missing in psychometric literature, allows us to differentiate between mere statistical and actual response inconsistency. Based on this combination of cognitive and linguistic theory, we advance the historical analysis of response bias by suggesting that future research should closely draw from linguistic concepts to arrive at a promising explanatory framework that can then better inform modeling decisions. However, further empirical studies are needed to test our hypotheses and evaluate the magnitude and relevance of the proposed linguistic effects.

Indexed as

cognitive processinglinguisticlogicmethod factornegationpolarity effectreverse-codingreverse-keying

Identifiers

PMID41190112
PMCPMC12581211

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.