调查模式与数据质量:跨文化语境下三种调查模式的草率回应

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Testing Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1080/15305058.2021.2019747
Zoe Magraw‐Mickelson, Harry Wang, M. Gollwitzer
{"title":"调查模式与数据质量:跨文化语境下三种调查模式的草率回应","authors":"Zoe Magraw‐Mickelson, Harry Wang, M. Gollwitzer","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2021.2019747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Much psychological research depends on participants’ diligence in filling out materials such as surveys. However, not all participants are motivated to respond attentively, which leads to unintended issues with data quality, known as careless responding. Our question is: how do different modes of data collection—paper/pencil, computer/web-based, and smartphone—affect participants’ diligence vs. “careless responding” tendencies and, thus, data quality? Results from prior studies suggest that different data collection modes produce a comparable prevalence of careless responding tendencies. However, as technology develops and data are collected with increasingly diversified populations, this question needs to be readdressed and taken further. The present research examined the effect of survey mode on careless responding in a repeated-measures design with data from three different samples. First, in a sample of working adults from China, we found that participants were slightly more careless when completing computer/web-based survey materials than in paper/pencil mode. Next, in a German student sample, participants were slightly more careless when completing the paper/pencil mode compared to the smartphone mode. Finally, in a sample of Chinese-speaking students, we found no difference between modes. Overall, in a meta-analysis of the findings, we found minimal difference between modes across cultures. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey mode and data quality: Careless responding across three modes in cross-cultural contexts\",\"authors\":\"Zoe Magraw‐Mickelson, Harry Wang, M. Gollwitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15305058.2021.2019747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Much psychological research depends on participants’ diligence in filling out materials such as surveys. However, not all participants are motivated to respond attentively, which leads to unintended issues with data quality, known as careless responding. Our question is: how do different modes of data collection—paper/pencil, computer/web-based, and smartphone—affect participants’ diligence vs. “careless responding” tendencies and, thus, data quality? Results from prior studies suggest that different data collection modes produce a comparable prevalence of careless responding tendencies. However, as technology develops and data are collected with increasingly diversified populations, this question needs to be readdressed and taken further. The present research examined the effect of survey mode on careless responding in a repeated-measures design with data from three different samples. First, in a sample of working adults from China, we found that participants were slightly more careless when completing computer/web-based survey materials than in paper/pencil mode. Next, in a German student sample, participants were slightly more careless when completing the paper/pencil mode compared to the smartphone mode. Finally, in a sample of Chinese-speaking students, we found no difference between modes. Overall, in a meta-analysis of the findings, we found minimal difference between modes across cultures. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2021.2019747\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2021.2019747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要许多心理学研究都取决于参与者在填写调查等材料时的勤奋程度。然而,并非所有参与者都有认真回应的动机,这会导致数据质量出现意外问题,即所谓的粗心回应。我们的问题是:不同的数据收集模式——纸/笔、计算机/网络和智能手机——如何影响参与者的勤奋与“粗心回应”倾向,从而影响数据质量?先前研究的结果表明,不同的数据收集模式产生了相当普遍的粗心反应倾向。然而,随着技术的发展和数据的收集,人口越来越多样化,这个问题需要重新思考和深入研究。本研究采用三个不同样本的数据,在重复测量设计中检验了调查模式对粗心反应的影响。首先,在一个来自中国的在职成年人样本中,我们发现参与者在完成计算机/网络调查材料时比在纸/笔模式下略为粗心。接下来,在一个德国学生样本中,与智能手机模式相比,参与者在完成纸/笔模式时稍微更粗心。最后,在一个讲汉语的学生样本中,我们发现模式之间没有差异。总的来说,在对研究结果的荟萃分析中,我们发现不同文化模式之间的差异很小。讨论了理论和实践意义。
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
Survey mode and data quality: Careless responding across three modes in cross-cultural contexts
Abstract Much psychological research depends on participants’ diligence in filling out materials such as surveys. However, not all participants are motivated to respond attentively, which leads to unintended issues with data quality, known as careless responding. Our question is: how do different modes of data collection—paper/pencil, computer/web-based, and smartphone—affect participants’ diligence vs. “careless responding” tendencies and, thus, data quality? Results from prior studies suggest that different data collection modes produce a comparable prevalence of careless responding tendencies. However, as technology develops and data are collected with increasingly diversified populations, this question needs to be readdressed and taken further. The present research examined the effect of survey mode on careless responding in a repeated-measures design with data from three different samples. First, in a sample of working adults from China, we found that participants were slightly more careless when completing computer/web-based survey materials than in paper/pencil mode. Next, in a German student sample, participants were slightly more careless when completing the paper/pencil mode compared to the smartphone mode. Finally, in a sample of Chinese-speaking students, we found no difference between modes. Overall, in a meta-analysis of the findings, we found minimal difference between modes across cultures. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Combining Mokken Scale Analysis with and rasch measurement theory to explore differences in measurement quality between subgroups Examining the construct validity of the MIDUS version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Where nonresponse is at its loudest: Cross-country and individual differences in item nonresponse across the PISA 2018 student questionnaire The choice between cognitive diagnosis and item response theory: A case study from medical education Beyond group comparisons: Accounting for intersectional sources of bias in international survey measures
×
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