Suppr超能文献

与李克特格式相比,大五人格量表和罗森伯格自尊量表扩展格式的属性得到改善。

Improved Properties of the Big Five Inventory and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in the Expanded Format Relative to the Likert Format.

作者信息

Zhang Xijuan, Tse Winnie Wing-Yee, Savalei Victoria

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CA, Canada.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 4;10:1286. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01286. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Previous research by Zhang and Savalei (2015) proposed an alternative scale format to the Likert scale format: the Expanded format. Scale items in the Expanded format present both positively worded and negatively worded sentences as response options for each scale item; therefore, they were less affected by the acquiescence bias and method effects that often occur in the Likert scale items. The major goal of the current study is to further demonstrate the superiority of the Expanded format to the Likert format across different psychological scales. Specifically, we aim to replicate the findings of Zhang and Savalei and to determine whether order effect exists in the Expanded format scales. Six psychological scales were examined in the study, including the five subscales of the big five inventory (BFI) and the Rosenberg self-esteem (RSE) scale. Four versions were created for each psychological scale. One version was the original scale in the Likert format. The other three versions were in different Expanded formats that varied in the order of the response options. For each scale, the participant was randomly assigned to complete one scale version. Across the different versions of each scale, we compared the factor structures and the distributions of the response options. Our results successfully replicated the findings of Zhang and Savalei, and also showed that order effect was generally absent in the Expanded format scales. Based on these promising findings, we encourage researchers to use the Expanded format for these and other scales in their substantive research.

摘要

张和萨瓦雷(2015年)之前的研究提出了一种替代李克特量表格式的量表格式:扩展格式。扩展格式的量表项目同时呈现了正向表述和负向表述的句子,作为每个量表项目的回答选项;因此,它们受李克特量表项目中经常出现的默许偏差和方法效应的影响较小。本研究的主要目标是在不同心理量表中进一步证明扩展格式相对于李克特格式的优越性。具体而言,我们旨在重复张和萨瓦雷的研究结果,并确定扩展格式量表中是否存在顺序效应。本研究考察了六个心理量表,包括大五人格量表(BFI)的五个子量表和罗森伯格自尊量表(RSE)。每个心理量表创建了四个版本。一个版本是李克特格式的原始量表。其他三个版本是不同的扩展格式,回答选项的顺序不同。对于每个量表,参与者被随机分配完成一个量表版本。在每个量表的不同版本中,我们比较了因子结构和回答选项的分布。我们的结果成功地重复了张和萨瓦雷的研究结果,并且还表明扩展格式量表中一般不存在顺序效应。基于这些有前景的发现,我们鼓励研究人员在其实质性研究中对这些量表和其他量表使用扩展格式。

相似文献

3
Improving the Factor Structure of Psychological Scales: The Expanded Format as an Alternative to the Likert Scale Format.
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Jun;76(3):357-386. doi: 10.1177/0013164415596421. Epub 2015 Jul 24.
4
Measuring Self-Esteem with Expanded Format in a Fraction of Time: ESE-S and ESE-US.
J Pers Assess. 2024 Mar-Apr;106(2):196-207. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2023.2259990. Epub 2023 Oct 2.
5
How Does the Number of Response Options Impact the Psychometric Properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale?
Assessment. 2023 Sep;30(6):1737-1749. doi: 10.1177/10731911221119532. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
6
An overview of alternative formats to the Likert format: A comment on Wilson et al. (2022).
Psychol Methods. 2024 Jun;29(3):606-612. doi: 10.1037/met0000631.
7
A comparison of reliability and construct validity between the original and revised versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
Psychiatry Investig. 2012 Mar;9(1):54-8. doi: 10.4306/pi.2012.9.1.54. Epub 2012 Jan 25.
10
How does item wording affect participants' responses in Likert scale? Evidence from IRT analysis.
Front Psychol. 2024 Oct 4;15:1304870. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1304870. eCollection 2024.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Examining the Effect of Reverse Worded Items on the Factor Structure of the Need for Cognition Scale.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 15;11(6):e0157795. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157795. eCollection 2016.
2
Improving the Factor Structure of Psychological Scales: The Expanded Format as an Alternative to the Likert Scale Format.
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Jun;76(3):357-386. doi: 10.1177/0013164415596421. Epub 2015 Jul 24.
3
Factors Influencing Four Rules For Determining The Number Of Components To Retain.
Multivariate Behav Res. 1982 Apr 1;17(2):253-69. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1702_5.
4
Investigating the Nature of Method Factors Through Multiple Informants: Evidence for a Specific Factor?
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 Jul 29;46(4):625-42. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.589272.
5
Recovering Substantive Factor Loadings in the Presence of Acquiescence Bias: A Comparison of Three Approaches.
Multivariate Behav Res. 2014 Sep-Oct;49(5):407-24. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.
6
metaSEM: an R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling.
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 5;5:1521. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521. eCollection 2014.
7
Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let's learn from cows in the rain.
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 31;8(7):e68967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967. Print 2013.
9
Method effects: the problem with negatively versus positively keyed items.
J Pers Assess. 2012;94(2):196-204. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.645936.
10
Eye-Tracking Data: New Insights on Response Order Effects and Other Cognitive Shortcuts in Survey Responding.
Public Opin Q. 2008;72(5):892-913. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn059. Epub 2008 Dec 12.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验