Why Do Regular and Reversed Items Load on Separate Factors? Response Difficulty vs. Item Extremity.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1177/00131644221143972
Chester Chun Seng Kam
{"title":"Why Do Regular and Reversed Items Load on Separate Factors? Response Difficulty vs. Item Extremity.","authors":"Chester Chun Seng Kam","doi":"10.1177/00131644221143972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When constructing measurement scales, regular and reversed items are often used (e.g., \"I am satisfied with my job\"/\"I am not satisfied with my job\"). Some methodologists recommend excluding reversed items because they are more difficult to understand and therefore engender a second, artificial factor distinct from the regular-item factor. The current study compares two explanations for why a construct's dimensionality may become distorted: response difficulty and item extremity. Two types of reversed items were created: negation items (\"The conditions of my life are not good\") and polar opposites (\"The conditions of my life are bad\"), with the former type having higher response difficulty. When extreme wording was used (e.g., \"excellent/terrible\" instead of \"good/bad\"), negation items did not load on a factor distinct from regular items, but polar opposites did. Results thus support item extremity over response difficulty as an explanation for dimensionality distortion. Given that scale developers seldom check for extremity, it is unsurprising that regular and polar opposite items often load on distinct factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10638982/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644221143972","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When constructing measurement scales, regular and reversed items are often used (e.g., "I am satisfied with my job"/"I am not satisfied with my job"). Some methodologists recommend excluding reversed items because they are more difficult to understand and therefore engender a second, artificial factor distinct from the regular-item factor. The current study compares two explanations for why a construct's dimensionality may become distorted: response difficulty and item extremity. Two types of reversed items were created: negation items ("The conditions of my life are not good") and polar opposites ("The conditions of my life are bad"), with the former type having higher response difficulty. When extreme wording was used (e.g., "excellent/terrible" instead of "good/bad"), negation items did not load on a factor distinct from regular items, but polar opposites did. Results thus support item extremity over response difficulty as an explanation for dimensionality distortion. Given that scale developers seldom check for extremity, it is unsurprising that regular and polar opposite items often load on distinct factors.

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
为什么常规项目和反向项目分别加载因子?反应难度与项目极端
在构建测量量表时,经常使用规则和反向的项目(例如,“我对我的工作满意”/“我对我的工作不满意”)。一些方法学家建议排除反向项目,因为它们更难以理解,因此会产生与常规项目因素不同的第二个人为因素。目前的研究比较了两种解释为什么一个结构的维度可能会扭曲:反应困难和项目极端。我们创造了两种类型的反题:否定题(“我的生活条件不好”)和两极对立题(“我的生活条件很差”),前者具有更高的反应难度。当使用极端的措辞时(例如,“优秀/糟糕”而不是“好/坏”),否定项不会与常规项产生不同的影响,但极性相反。因此,结果支持项目极端化而非反应困难作为维度扭曲的解释。考虑到规模开发者很少检查极端情况,所以规则和极性相反的项目通常加载不同的因素也就不足为奇了。
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
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Ordering Structure of Clustered Items Using Nonparametric Item Response Theory Added Value of Subscores for Tests With Polytomous Items An Ensemble Learning Approach Based on TabNet and Machine Learning Models for Cheating Detection in Educational Tests. An Illustration of an IRTree Model for Disengagement. A Relative Normed Effect-Size Difference Index for Determining the Number of Common Factors in Exploratory Solutions.
×
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