太可靠而不真实?反应偏差是纸笔问卷可靠性膨胀的潜在来源。

Q2 Social Sciences Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation Pub Date : 2011-06-01 DOI:10.7275/E482-N724
Eyal Péer, Eyal Gamliel
{"title":"太可靠而不真实?反应偏差是纸笔问卷可靠性膨胀的潜在来源。","authors":"Eyal Péer, Eyal Gamliel","doi":"10.7275/E482-N724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When respondents answer paper-and-pencil (PP) questionnaires, they sometimes modify their responses to correspond to previously answered items. As a result, this response bias might artificially inflate the reliability of PP questionnaires. We compared the internal consistency of PP questionnaires to computerized questionnaires that presented a different number of items on a computer screen simultaneously. Study 1 showed that a PP questionnaire’s internal consistency was higher than that of the same questionnaire presented on a computer screen with one, two or four questions per screen. Study 2 replicated these findings to show that internal consistency was also relatively high when all questions were shown on one screen. This suggests that the differences found in Study 1 were not due to the difference in presentation medium. Thus, this paper suggests that reliability measures of PP questionnaires might be inflated because of a response bias resulting from participants cross-checking their answers against ones given to previous questions.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"63","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Reliable to Be True? Response Bias as a Potential Source of Inflation in Paper-and-Pencil Questionnaire Reliability.\",\"authors\":\"Eyal Péer, Eyal Gamliel\",\"doi\":\"10.7275/E482-N724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When respondents answer paper-and-pencil (PP) questionnaires, they sometimes modify their responses to correspond to previously answered items. As a result, this response bias might artificially inflate the reliability of PP questionnaires. We compared the internal consistency of PP questionnaires to computerized questionnaires that presented a different number of items on a computer screen simultaneously. Study 1 showed that a PP questionnaire’s internal consistency was higher than that of the same questionnaire presented on a computer screen with one, two or four questions per screen. Study 2 replicated these findings to show that internal consistency was also relatively high when all questions were shown on one screen. This suggests that the differences found in Study 1 were not due to the difference in presentation medium. Thus, this paper suggests that reliability measures of PP questionnaires might be inflated because of a response bias resulting from participants cross-checking their answers against ones given to previous questions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"63\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7275/E482-N724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/E482-N724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

摘要

当被调查者回答纸笔(PP)问卷时,他们有时会修改他们的回答以对应于先前回答的项目。因此,这种反应偏差可能人为地夸大了PP问卷的可靠性。我们比较了PP问卷和电脑问卷的内部一致性,电脑问卷同时在电脑屏幕上呈现不同数量的项目。研究1表明,PP问卷的内部一致性高于在计算机屏幕上呈现的相同问卷,每个屏幕有一个,两个或四个问题。研究2重复了这些发现,表明当所有问题都显示在一个屏幕上时,内部一致性也相对较高。这表明在研究1中发现的差异不是由于呈现媒介的差异。因此,本文认为PP问卷的可靠性测量可能会被夸大,因为参与者交叉检查他们的答案与先前问题的答案所导致的反应偏差。
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
Too Reliable to Be True? Response Bias as a Potential Source of Inflation in Paper-and-Pencil Questionnaire Reliability.
When respondents answer paper-and-pencil (PP) questionnaires, they sometimes modify their responses to correspond to previously answered items. As a result, this response bias might artificially inflate the reliability of PP questionnaires. We compared the internal consistency of PP questionnaires to computerized questionnaires that presented a different number of items on a computer screen simultaneously. Study 1 showed that a PP questionnaire’s internal consistency was higher than that of the same questionnaire presented on a computer screen with one, two or four questions per screen. Study 2 replicated these findings to show that internal consistency was also relatively high when all questions were shown on one screen. This suggests that the differences found in Study 1 were not due to the difference in presentation medium. Thus, this paper suggests that reliability measures of PP questionnaires might be inflated because of a response bias resulting from participants cross-checking their answers against ones given to previous questions.
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Feedback is a gift: Do Video-enhanced rubrics result in providing better peer feedback than textual rubrics? Do Loss Aversion and the Ownership Effect Bias Content Validation Procedures Flipping the Feedback: Formative Assessment in a Flipped Freshman Circuits Class Eight issues to consider when developing animated videos for the assessment of complex constructs Variability In The Accuracy Of Self-Assessments Among Low, Moderate, And High Performing Students In University Education
×
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