nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Controlling Acquiescence Bias with Multidimensional IRT Modeling

verfasst von : Ricardo Primi, Nelson Hauck-Filho, Felipe Valentini, Daniel Santos, Carl F. Falk

Erschienen in: Quantitative Psychology

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Acquiescence is a commonly observed response style that may distort respondent scores. One approach to control for acquiescence involves creating a balanced scale and computing sum scores. Other model-based approaches may explicitly include an acquiescence factor as part of a factor analysis or multidimensional item response model. Under certain assumptions, both approaches may result in acquiescence-controlled scores for each respondent. However, the validity of the resulting scores is one issue that is sometimes ignored. In this paper, we present an application of these approaches under both balanced and unbalanced scales, and we report changes in criterion validity and respondent scores.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel NUTS for Mixture IRT Models

Nächstes Kapitel IRT Scales for Self-reported Test-Taking Motivation of Swedish Students in International Surveys

Allen, M. S., Walter, E. E., & McDermott, M. S. (2017). Personality and sedentary behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 36(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000429.CrossRef

Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5.CrossRef

Cai, L. (2010). A two-tier full-information item factor analysis model with applications. Psychometrika, 75, 581–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9178-0.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Chalmers, R. P. (2012). MIRT: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i06/.

De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Publications.

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/504455.CrossRef

Huang, I.-C., Lee, J. L., Ketheeswaran, P., Jones, C. M., Revicki, D. A., & Wu, A. W. (2017). Does personality affect health-related quality of life? A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0173806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173806.CrossRef

John, O., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.

Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 512–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115571894.CrossRef

Knowles, E. S., & Nathan, K. T. (1997). Acquiescent responding in self-reports: cognitive style or social concern? Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2180.CrossRef

Kyllonen, P. C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Personality, motivation, and college readiness: A prospectus for assessment and development. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12004.CrossRef

Lipnevich, A. A., Preckel, F., & Roberts, R. D. (2016). Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21th century. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344.CrossRef

Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2018). An integrated procedure to control for common method variance in survey data using random intercept factor analysis models. https://www.academia.edu/36641946/An_integrated_procedure_to_control_for_common_method_variance_in_survey_data_using_random_intercept_factor_analysis_models.

McCrae, R. R. (2018). Method biases in single-source personality assessments. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000566.CrossRef

Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1991). Eliminating defense and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control: A 2 × 2 index. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786931.CrossRef

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.CrossRef

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrighsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRef

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996.CrossRef

Poropat, A. E. (2014). A meta-analysis of adult-rated child personality and academic performance in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12019.CrossRef

Primi, R., De Fruyt, F., Santos, D., Antonoplis, S. & John, O. P. (2018). True or False? Keying direction and acquiescence influence the validity of socio-emotional skills items in predicting high school achievement. Submitted paper under review.

Primi, R., Santos, D., De Fruyt, F., & John, O. P. (2019). Comparison of classical and modern methods for measuring and correcting for acquiescence. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology.

Primi, R., Santos, D., John, O. P., & De Fruyt, F. D. (2016). Development of an inventory assessing social and emotional skills in Brazilian youth. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000343.CrossRef

Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014a). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.CrossRef

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.CrossRef

Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014b). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.CrossRef

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718.CrossRef

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717.CrossRef

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2019). Optimizing the length, width, and balance of a personality scale: How do internal characteristics affect external validity? Psychological Assessment, 31, 586–590.https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000586.

Ten Berge, J. M. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3401_4.CrossRef

Valentini, F. (2017). Editorial: Influência e controle da aquiescência na análise fatorial [Editorial: Acquiescence and factor analysis]. Avaliação Psicológica, 16, 120–121. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2017.1602.CrossRef

Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018721.CrossRef

Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2015). The Stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714.

Zhang, J., & Ziegler, M. (2018). Why do personality traits predict scholastic performance? A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.04.006.CrossRef

Ziegler, M. (2015). “F*** You, I Won’t Do What You Told Me!”—Response biases as threats to psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000292.CrossRef

Titel: Controlling Acquiescence Bias with Multidimensional IRT Modeling
verfasst von: Ricardo Primi
Nelson Hauck-Filho
Felipe Valentini
Daniel Santos
Carl F. Falk
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Quantitative Psychology
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01309-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-01310-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"