The Effects of Questionnaire Length on the Relative Impact of Response Styles in Ambulatory Assessment.

IF 5.3 3区 心理学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Multivariate Behavioral Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1080/00273171.2024.2354233
Kilian Hasselhorn, Charlotte Ottenstein, Thorsten Meiser, Tanja Lischetzke
{"title":"The Effects of Questionnaire Length on the Relative Impact of Response Styles in Ambulatory Assessment.","authors":"Kilian Hasselhorn, Charlotte Ottenstein, Thorsten Meiser, Tanja Lischetzke","doi":"10.1080/00273171.2024.2354233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ambulatory assessment (AA) is becoming an increasingly popular research method in the fields of psychology and life science. Nevertheless, knowledge about the effects that design choices, such as questionnaire length (i.e., number of items per questionnaire), have on AA data quality is still surprisingly restricted. Additionally, response styles (RS), which threaten data quality, have hardly been analyzed in the context of AA. The aim of the current research was to experimentally manipulate questionnaire length and investigate the association between questionnaire length and RS in an AA study. We expected that the group with the longer (82-item) questionnaire would show greater reliance on RS relative to the substantive traits than the group with the shorter (33-item) questionnaire. Students (<i>n</i> = 284) received questionnaires three times a day for 14 days. We used a multigroup two-dimensional item response tree model in a multilevel structural equation modeling framework to estimate midpoint and extreme RS in our AA study. We found that the long questionnaire group showed a greater reliance on RS relative to trait-based processes than the short questionnaire group. Although further validation of our findings is necessary, we hope that researchers consider our findings when planning an AA study in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":53155,"journal":{"name":"Multivariate Behavioral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multivariate Behavioral Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2024.2354233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ambulatory assessment (AA) is becoming an increasingly popular research method in the fields of psychology and life science. Nevertheless, knowledge about the effects that design choices, such as questionnaire length (i.e., number of items per questionnaire), have on AA data quality is still surprisingly restricted. Additionally, response styles (RS), which threaten data quality, have hardly been analyzed in the context of AA. The aim of the current research was to experimentally manipulate questionnaire length and investigate the association between questionnaire length and RS in an AA study. We expected that the group with the longer (82-item) questionnaire would show greater reliance on RS relative to the substantive traits than the group with the shorter (33-item) questionnaire. Students (n = 284) received questionnaires three times a day for 14 days. We used a multigroup two-dimensional item response tree model in a multilevel structural equation modeling framework to estimate midpoint and extreme RS in our AA study. We found that the long questionnaire group showed a greater reliance on RS relative to trait-based processes than the short questionnaire group. Although further validation of our findings is necessary, we hope that researchers consider our findings when planning an AA study in the future.

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
在非卧床评估中,问卷长度对回答方式相对影响的影响。
在心理学和生命科学领域,非卧床评估(AA)正日益成为一种流行的研究方法。然而,有关问卷长度(即每份问卷的项目数)等设计选择对非卧床评估数据质量的影响的知识仍然非常有限。此外,威胁数据质量的应答方式(RS)也几乎没有在 AA 的背景下进行过分析。当前研究的目的是在一项 AA 研究中,通过实验操纵问卷长度,并调查问卷长度与 RS 之间的关联。我们预计,与问卷较短(33 个条目)的小组相比,问卷较长(82 个条目)的小组将表现出更多的对 RS 的依赖。学生(n = 284)在 14 天内每天接受三次问卷调查。在 AA 研究中,我们在多层次结构方程建模框架下使用了多组二维项目反应树模型来估计中点和极端 RS。我们发现,相对于基于特质的过程,长问卷组比短问卷组更依赖于 RS。尽管我们的研究结果还需要进一步验证,但我们希望研究人员今后在计划 AA 研究时能考虑到我们的研究结果。
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
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Multivariate Behavioral Research 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.60%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Multivariate Behavioral Research (MBR) publishes a variety of substantive, methodological, and theoretical articles in all areas of the social and behavioral sciences. Most MBR articles fall into one of two categories. Substantive articles report on applications of sophisticated multivariate research methods to study topics of substantive interest in personality, health, intelligence, industrial/organizational, and other behavioral science areas. Methodological articles present and/or evaluate new developments in multivariate methods, or address methodological issues in current research. We also encourage submission of integrative articles related to pedagogy involving multivariate research methods, and to historical treatments of interest and relevance to multivariate research methods.
期刊最新文献
Why You Should Not Estimate Mediated Effects Using the Difference-in-Coefficients Method When the Outcome is Binary. A Causal View on Bias in Missing Data Imputation: The Impact of Evil Auxiliary Variables on Norming of Test Scores. Make Some Noise: Generating Data from Imperfect Factor Models. Exploring Estimation Procedures for Reducing Dimensionality in Psychological Network Modeling. A Review of Some of the History of Factorial Invariance and Differential Item Functioning.
×
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