Psychometric benefits of self-chosen rating scales over given rating scales.

IF 3.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.3758/s13428-024-02429-w
Tanja Kutscher, Michael Eid
{"title":"Psychometric benefits of self-chosen rating scales over given rating scales.","authors":"Tanja Kutscher, Michael Eid","doi":"10.3758/s13428-024-02429-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rating scales are susceptible to response styles that undermine the scale quality. Optimizing a rating scale can tailor it to individuals' cognitive abilities, thereby preventing the occurrence of response styles related to a suboptimal response format. However, the discrimination ability of individuals in a sample may vary, suggesting that different rating scales may be appropriate for different individuals. This study aims to examine (1) whether response styles can be avoided when individuals are allowed to choose a rating scale and (2) whether the psychometric properties of self-chosen rating scales improve compared to given rating scales. To address these objectives, data from the flourishing scale were used as an illustrative example. MTurk workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform (N = 7042) completed an eight-item flourishing scale twice: (1) using a randomly assigned four-, six-, or 11-point rating scale, and (2) using a self-chosen rating scale. Applying the restrictive mixed generalized partial credit model (rmGPCM) allowed examination of category use across the conditions. Correlations with external variables were calculated to assess the effects of the rating scales on criterion validity. The results revealed consistent use of self-chosen rating scales, with approximately equal proportions of the three response styles. Ordinary response behavior was observed in 55-58% of individuals, which was an increase of 12-15% compared to assigned rating scales. The self-chosen rating scales also exhibited superior psychometric properties. The implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":"7440-7464"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02429-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rating scales are susceptible to response styles that undermine the scale quality. Optimizing a rating scale can tailor it to individuals' cognitive abilities, thereby preventing the occurrence of response styles related to a suboptimal response format. However, the discrimination ability of individuals in a sample may vary, suggesting that different rating scales may be appropriate for different individuals. This study aims to examine (1) whether response styles can be avoided when individuals are allowed to choose a rating scale and (2) whether the psychometric properties of self-chosen rating scales improve compared to given rating scales. To address these objectives, data from the flourishing scale were used as an illustrative example. MTurk workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform (N = 7042) completed an eight-item flourishing scale twice: (1) using a randomly assigned four-, six-, or 11-point rating scale, and (2) using a self-chosen rating scale. Applying the restrictive mixed generalized partial credit model (rmGPCM) allowed examination of category use across the conditions. Correlations with external variables were calculated to assess the effects of the rating scales on criterion validity. The results revealed consistent use of self-chosen rating scales, with approximately equal proportions of the three response styles. Ordinary response behavior was observed in 55-58% of individuals, which was an increase of 12-15% compared to assigned rating scales. The self-chosen rating scales also exhibited superior psychometric properties. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Abstract Image

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
自选评分量表相对于给定评分量表的心理测量优势。
评分量表很容易受到影响量表质量的应答方式的影响。优化评分量表可以使其符合个人的认知能力,从而防止出现与次优回答形式相关的回答方式。然而,样本中个体的辨别能力可能存在差异,这表明不同的评分量表可能适合不同的个体。本研究旨在探讨:(1) 当允许个体选择评分量表时,是否可以避免出现反应风格;(2) 与给定的评分量表相比,自选评分量表的心理测量特性是否有所改善。为了实现这些目标,我们使用了繁盛量表的数据作为示例。来自亚马逊 Mechanical Turk 平台的 MTurk 工作者(N = 7042)两次完成了一个包含 8 个项目的兴旺量表:(1)使用随机分配的 4 分、6 分或 11 分评分量表;(2)使用自选评分量表。应用限制性混合广义部分信用模型(rmGPCM)可以对不同条件下的类别使用情况进行检查。计算了与外部变量的相关性,以评估评分量表对标准效度的影响。结果表明,自选评分量表的使用是一致的,三种反应方式所占比例大致相同。55%-58%的人有普通反应行为,比指定评分量表增加了 12%-15%。自选评分量表还表现出更优越的心理测量特性。本文讨论了这些发现的意义。
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
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Moderated mediation with composites: The composite moderated structural equations approach. Author Correction: Attention in hindsight: Using stimulated recall to capture dynamic fluctuations in attentional engagement. When the meaningless make sense: Wordlikeness and affective norms for 4,800 pseudowords and 1,200 Spanish words. An illustrative guide to expressing cognitive theories using evidence accumulation modelling. Estimating correlations across tasks in experimental psychology.
×
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:604180095
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