Beatrice Rammstedt, L. Roemer, D. Danner, Clemens M. Lechner
{"title":"Don’t Keep It Too Simple","authors":"Beatrice Rammstedt, L. Roemer, D. Danner, Clemens M. Lechner","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. When formulating questionnaire items, generally accepted rules include: Keeping the wording as simple as possible and avoiding double-barreled items. However, the empirical basis for these rules is sparse. The present study aimed to systematically investigate in an experimental design whether simplifying items of a personality scale and avoiding double-barreled items (i.e., items that contain multiple stimuli) markedly increases psychometric quality. Specifically, we compared the original items of the Big Five Inventory-2 – most of which are either double-barreled or can be regarded as complexly formulated – with simplified versions of the items. We tested the two versions using a large, heterogeneous sample ( N = 2,234). The simplified versions did not possess better psychometric quality than their original counterparts; rather, they showed weaker factorial validity. Regarding item characteristics, reliability, and criterion validity, no substantial differences were identified between the original and simplified versions. These findings were also replicated for the subsample of lower-educated respondents, who are considered more sensitive to complex item formulations. Our study thus suggests that simplifying item wording and avoiding double-barreled items in a personality inventory does not improve the quality of a questionnaire; rather, using simpler (and consequently more vague) item formulations may even decrease factorial validity.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000741","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Abstract. When formulating questionnaire items, generally accepted rules include: Keeping the wording as simple as possible and avoiding double-barreled items. However, the empirical basis for these rules is sparse. The present study aimed to systematically investigate in an experimental design whether simplifying items of a personality scale and avoiding double-barreled items (i.e., items that contain multiple stimuli) markedly increases psychometric quality. Specifically, we compared the original items of the Big Five Inventory-2 – most of which are either double-barreled or can be regarded as complexly formulated – with simplified versions of the items. We tested the two versions using a large, heterogeneous sample ( N = 2,234). The simplified versions did not possess better psychometric quality than their original counterparts; rather, they showed weaker factorial validity. Regarding item characteristics, reliability, and criterion validity, no substantial differences were identified between the original and simplified versions. These findings were also replicated for the subsample of lower-educated respondents, who are considered more sensitive to complex item formulations. Our study thus suggests that simplifying item wording and avoiding double-barreled items in a personality inventory does not improve the quality of a questionnaire; rather, using simpler (and consequently more vague) item formulations may even decrease factorial validity.
期刊介绍:
The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.