Investigating lay perceptions of psychological measures: A registered report

Q2 Psychology Social Psychological Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.32872/spb.9383
Joseph Mason, Madeleine Pownall, Amy Palmer, F. Azevedo
{"title":"Investigating lay perceptions of psychological measures: A registered report","authors":"Joseph Mason, Madeleine Pownall, Amy Palmer, F. Azevedo","doi":"10.32872/spb.9383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the reliability and validity of psychology measurement practices has been called into question, as part of an ongoing reappraisal of the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of psychological research. While useful progress has been made, to date, the majority of discussions surrounding psychology’s measurement crisis have involved technical, quantitative investigations into the validity, reliability, and statistical robustness of psychological measures. This registered report offers a seldom-heard qualitative perspective on these ongoing debates, critically exploring members of the general public’s (i.e., non-experts) lay perceptions of widely used measures in psychology. Using a combination of cognitive interviews and a think aloud study protocol, participants (n = 23) completed one of three popular psychology measures. Participants reflected on each of the measures, discussed the contents, and provided perceptions of what the measures are designed to test. Coding of the think aloud protocols showed that participants across the measures had issues in interpreting and responding to items. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews identified three dominant themes that each relate to lay perceptions of psychology measurements. These were: (1) participants’ grappling with attempting to ‘capture their multiple selves’ in the questionnaires, (2) participants perceiving the questionnaire method as generally ‘missing nuance and richness’ and (3) exposing the ‘hidden labour of questionnaires’. These findings are discussed in the context of psychology’s measurement reform.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, the reliability and validity of psychology measurement practices has been called into question, as part of an ongoing reappraisal of the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of psychological research. While useful progress has been made, to date, the majority of discussions surrounding psychology’s measurement crisis have involved technical, quantitative investigations into the validity, reliability, and statistical robustness of psychological measures. This registered report offers a seldom-heard qualitative perspective on these ongoing debates, critically exploring members of the general public’s (i.e., non-experts) lay perceptions of widely used measures in psychology. Using a combination of cognitive interviews and a think aloud study protocol, participants (n = 23) completed one of three popular psychology measures. Participants reflected on each of the measures, discussed the contents, and provided perceptions of what the measures are designed to test. Coding of the think aloud protocols showed that participants across the measures had issues in interpreting and responding to items. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews identified three dominant themes that each relate to lay perceptions of psychology measurements. These were: (1) participants’ grappling with attempting to ‘capture their multiple selves’ in the questionnaires, (2) participants perceiving the questionnaire method as generally ‘missing nuance and richness’ and (3) exposing the ‘hidden labour of questionnaires’. These findings are discussed in the context of psychology’s measurement reform.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查外行人对心理测量的看法:登记报告
近年来,心理学测量实践的可靠性和有效性受到了质疑,这也是心理学研究的稳健性、可重复性和透明度的持续重新评估的一部分。虽然已经取得了有益的进展,但迄今为止,围绕心理学测量危机的讨论大多涉及心理学测量的有效性、可靠性和统计稳健性的技术性定量调查。这份注册报告为这些正在进行的争论提供了一个鲜为人知的定性视角,批判性地探讨了普通大众(即非专业人士)对心理学中广泛使用的测量方法的非专业看法。通过认知访谈和大声思考研究协议的结合,参与者(n = 23)完成了三种流行心理学测量方法中的一种。参与者对每项测量进行了反思,讨论了测量内容,并提供了他们对这些测量旨在测试什么的看法。对朗读思考协议的编码显示,不同测量项目的参与者在解释和回应项目时都存在问题。认知访谈的主题分析确定了三个主导主题,每个主题都与外行人对心理学测量的看法有关。它们是(1) 参与者努力尝试在问卷中 "捕捉多重自我",(2) 参与者认为问卷调查方法通常 "缺少细微差别和丰富性",(3) 暴露了 "问卷调查的隐性劳动"。这些研究结果将在心理学测量改革的背景下进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction of Paulina Banaszkiewicz (2022). Biological sex and psychological gender differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy Correction of Nathan Vidal et al. (2023). Assessing the reliability of an infrared thermography protocol to assess cold-induced brown adipose tissue activation in French psychology students Willingness to use moral reframing: Support comes from perceived effectiveness, opposition comes from integrity concerns Feeling bad about feeling good? how avengers and observers evaluate the hedonic pleasure of taking revenge Anticipated and achieved individual mobility amongst Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland: Social identity adjustment and inter-minority relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1