Check your data before you wreck your model: The impact of careless responding on substance use data quality

IF 2.7 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.) Pub Date : 2025-03-16 DOI:10.1111/acer.70024
Abby L. Braitman, Anna M. Petrey, Jennifer L. Shipley, Rachel Ayala Guzman, Emily Renzoni, Alison Looby, Adrian J. Bravo, Stimulant Norms and Prevalence 2 (SNAP2) Study Team
{"title":"Check your data before you wreck your model: The impact of careless responding on substance use data quality","authors":"Abby L. Braitman,&nbsp;Anna M. Petrey,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Shipley,&nbsp;Rachel Ayala Guzman,&nbsp;Emily Renzoni,&nbsp;Alison Looby,&nbsp;Adrian J. Bravo,&nbsp;Stimulant Norms and Prevalence 2 (SNAP2) Study Team","doi":"10.1111/acer.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The accuracy of survey responses is a concern in research data quality, especially in college student samples. However, examination of the impact of removing participants from analyses who respond inaccurately or carelessly is warranted given the potential for loss of information or sample diversity. This study aimed to understand if careless responding varies across a number of demographic indices, substance use behaviors, and the timing of survey completion.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>College students (<i>N</i> = 5809; 70.7% female; 75.7% White, non-Hispanic) enrolled in psychology classes from six universities completed an online survey assessing a variety of demographic and substance use-related information, which included four attention check questions dispersed throughout the hour-long survey. Differences in careless responding were assessed across multiple demographic groups, and we examined the impact of careless responding on data quality via a confirmatory factor analysis of a validated substance use measure, the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised Short Form.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Careless responding varied significantly by participant race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Substance use was generally unassociated with careless responding, though careless responding was associated with experiencing more alcohol-related problems. Careless responding was more prevalent when the survey was completed near the end of the semester. Finally, the factor structure of the drinking motives measure was affected by the inclusion of those who failed two or more attention check questions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Including attention checks in surveys is an effective method to detect and address careless responding. However, omitting participants from analyses who evidence any careless responding may bias the sample demographics. We discuss recommendations for the use of attention check questions in undergraduate substance use cross-sectional surveys, including retaining participants who fail only one attention check, as this has a minimal impact on data quality while preserving sample diversity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":72145,"journal":{"name":"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)","volume":"49 4","pages":"941-951"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/acer.70024","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.70024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The accuracy of survey responses is a concern in research data quality, especially in college student samples. However, examination of the impact of removing participants from analyses who respond inaccurately or carelessly is warranted given the potential for loss of information or sample diversity. This study aimed to understand if careless responding varies across a number of demographic indices, substance use behaviors, and the timing of survey completion.

Method

College students (N = 5809; 70.7% female; 75.7% White, non-Hispanic) enrolled in psychology classes from six universities completed an online survey assessing a variety of demographic and substance use-related information, which included four attention check questions dispersed throughout the hour-long survey. Differences in careless responding were assessed across multiple demographic groups, and we examined the impact of careless responding on data quality via a confirmatory factor analysis of a validated substance use measure, the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised Short Form.

Results

Careless responding varied significantly by participant race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Substance use was generally unassociated with careless responding, though careless responding was associated with experiencing more alcohol-related problems. Careless responding was more prevalent when the survey was completed near the end of the semester. Finally, the factor structure of the drinking motives measure was affected by the inclusion of those who failed two or more attention check questions.

Conclusions

Including attention checks in surveys is an effective method to detect and address careless responding. However, omitting participants from analyses who evidence any careless responding may bias the sample demographics. We discuss recommendations for the use of attention check questions in undergraduate substance use cross-sectional surveys, including retaining participants who fail only one attention check, as this has a minimal impact on data quality while preserving sample diversity.

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
在你破坏你的模型之前检查你的数据:粗心的反应对物质使用数据质量的影响。
背景:调查回答的准确性是研究数据质量的一个关注点,特别是在大学生样本中。然而,考虑到信息或样本多样性的潜在损失,检查从分析中删除反应不准确或漫不经心的参与者的影响是有必要的。本研究旨在了解粗心的反应是否因人口统计指数、物质使用行为和调查完成时间的不同而有所不同。方法:大学生(N = 5809;70.7%的女性;75.7%(白人,非西班牙裔)参加了来自六所大学的心理学课程,他们完成了一项在线调查,评估各种人口统计和物质使用相关信息,其中包括四个注意力检查问题,这些问题分散在长达一小时的调查中。在多个人口统计组中评估了粗心回答的差异,我们通过对有效物质使用测量的验证性因素分析(饮酒动机问卷-修订简短表格)检查了粗心回答对数据质量的影响。结果:粗心的回答因参与者的种族、性别、性取向和社会经济地位而有显著差异。药物使用通常与粗心反应无关,尽管粗心反应与经历更多与酒精有关的问题有关。在临近学期末的时候,粗心的回答更为普遍。最后,饮酒动机测量的因素结构受到纳入两个或两个以上注意力检查问题不及格者的影响。结论:在调查中加入注意检查是发现和解决粗心回答的有效方法。然而,从分析中忽略那些证明粗心回答的参与者可能会使样本人口统计数据产生偏差。我们讨论了在大学生物质使用横断面调查中使用注意检查问题的建议,包括保留只通过一次注意检查的参与者,因为这对数据质量的影响最小,同时保留了样本多样性。
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
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Manifestation of Drinking Profiles in Daily Life: Associations With Momentary Negative Affect, Impulsivity, and Drinking Psychosocial Risk Factors and Outcomes Among Men and Women With Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease Undergoing Transplant Evaluation Issue Information Sex Differences in Scalp-to-Cortex Distance: Implications for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Efficacy in Alcohol Use Disorder A Secondary, Subgroup Analysis of Alcohol Cue-Exposure Craving in Response to Pharmacological Inhibition of the Growth Hormone Secretagogue Receptor With PF-5190457
×
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