农场经营者使用听力保护器自我报告中的社会期望偏差。

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Pub Date : 2015-11-01 Epub Date: 2015-07-23 DOI:10.1093/annhyg/mev046
Marjorie C McCullagh, Marie-Anne Rosemberg
{"title":"农场经营者使用听力保护器自我报告中的社会期望偏差。","authors":"Marjorie C McCullagh,&nbsp;Marie-Anne Rosemberg","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mev046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were (i) to examine the relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability bias, and (ii) to compare results of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument when administered using two different methods (i.e. online and by telephone).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument, as well as a self-administered instrument measuring use of hearing protectors, was administered to 497 participants in a study of hearing protector use. The relationship between hearing protector use and social desirability bias was examined using regression analysis. The results of two methods of administration of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument were compared using t-tests and regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability (using Cronbach's alpha) for the shortened seven-item scale for this sample was 0.58. There was no evidence of a relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability reporting bias, as measured by the shortened Marlowe-Crowne. The difference in results by method of administration (i.e. online, telephone) was very small.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first published study to measure social desirability bias in reporting of hearing protector use among farmers. Findings of this study do not support the presence of social desirability bias in farmers' reporting of hearing protector use, lending support for the validity of self-report in hearing protector use in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":8458,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/annhyg/mev046","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reporting of Hearing Protector Use among Farm Operators.\",\"authors\":\"Marjorie C McCullagh,&nbsp;Marie-Anne Rosemberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/annhyg/mev046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were (i) to examine the relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability bias, and (ii) to compare results of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument when administered using two different methods (i.e. online and by telephone).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument, as well as a self-administered instrument measuring use of hearing protectors, was administered to 497 participants in a study of hearing protector use. The relationship between hearing protector use and social desirability bias was examined using regression analysis. The results of two methods of administration of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument were compared using t-tests and regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability (using Cronbach's alpha) for the shortened seven-item scale for this sample was 0.58. There was no evidence of a relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability reporting bias, as measured by the shortened Marlowe-Crowne. The difference in results by method of administration (i.e. online, telephone) was very small.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first published study to measure social desirability bias in reporting of hearing protector use among farmers. Findings of this study do not support the presence of social desirability bias in farmers' reporting of hearing protector use, lending support for the validity of self-report in hearing protector use in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Occupational Hygiene\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/annhyg/mev046\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Occupational Hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/7/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是(i)检验听力保护器使用与社会期望偏差之间的关系,以及(ii)比较使用两种不同方法(即在线和电话)使用marlow - crown社会期望仪器的结果。方法:在一项听力保护器使用的研究中,对497名参与者进行了一项缩短版的marlow - crown社会期望仪和一种自我管理的测量听力保护器使用情况的仪器。采用回归分析检验了听力保护器使用与社会期望偏差的关系。采用t检验和回归分析比较marlow - crown社会期望量表两种给药方法的结果。结果:该样本的缩短七项量表的信度(使用Cronbach's alpha)为0.58。没有证据表明听力保护器的使用与社会期望报告偏差之间存在关系,正如缩短的马洛-克朗所测量的那样。不同给药方式(即在线、电话)的结果差异很小。结论:这是首次发表的测量农民使用听力保护器报告中的社会期望偏差的研究。本研究结果不支持农民在听力保护器使用报告中存在社会期望偏差,为该人群听力保护器使用自我报告的有效性提供了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reporting of Hearing Protector Use among Farm Operators.

Objective: The purposes of this study were (i) to examine the relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability bias, and (ii) to compare results of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument when administered using two different methods (i.e. online and by telephone).

Methods: A shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument, as well as a self-administered instrument measuring use of hearing protectors, was administered to 497 participants in a study of hearing protector use. The relationship between hearing protector use and social desirability bias was examined using regression analysis. The results of two methods of administration of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability instrument were compared using t-tests and regression analysis.

Results: Reliability (using Cronbach's alpha) for the shortened seven-item scale for this sample was 0.58. There was no evidence of a relationship between reported hearing protector use and social desirability reporting bias, as measured by the shortened Marlowe-Crowne. The difference in results by method of administration (i.e. online, telephone) was very small.

Conclusions: This is the first published study to measure social desirability bias in reporting of hearing protector use among farmers. Findings of this study do not support the presence of social desirability bias in farmers' reporting of hearing protector use, lending support for the validity of self-report in hearing protector use in this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Non-compliance of Asbestos Occupational Standards in Brake Repair Workers. Whole Body Vibration Exposures and Health Status among Professional Truck Drivers: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Physicochemical Characterization of Aerosol Generated in the Gas Tungsten Arc Welding of Stainless Steel. Effect of Occupational Exposure on A(H1N1)pdm09 Infection and Hospitalization. A Systematic Review of Reported Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials.
×
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