4.3 Article

Effects of Response Option Order on Likert-Type Psychometric Properties and Reactions

期刊

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 1107-1129

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00131644211069406

关键词

response option order; Likert-type scales; careless responding; online surveys; survey responses; participant reactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of different response option orders on survey responses have been extensively studied. This study found little to no response option order effects on a recognized personality assessment. However, the completely randomized response option order condition showed differences in careless responding, suggesting avenues for future research.
The effects of different response option orders on survey responses have been studied extensively. The typical research design involves examining the differences in response characteristics between conditions with the same item stems and response option orders that differ in valence-either incrementally arranged (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly agree) or decrementally arranged (e.g., strongly agree to strongly disagree). The present study added two additional experimental conditions-randomly incremental or decremental and completely randomized. All items were presented in an item-by-item format. We also extended previous studies by including an examination of response option order effects on: careless responding, correlations between focal predictors and criteria, and participant reactions, all the while controlling for false discovery rate and focusing on the size of effects. In a sample of 1,198 university students, we found little to no response option order effects on a recognized personality assessment vis-a-vis measurement equivalence, scale mean differences, item-level distributions, or participant reactions. However, the completely randomized response option order condition differed on several careless responding indices suggesting avenues for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据