• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

粗心作答会威胁到因素分析结果和人格测量的结构效度。

Careless Responding Threatens Factorial Analytic Results and Construct Validity of Personality Measure.

作者信息

Kam Chester Chun Seng

机构信息

Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau, China.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 14;10:1258. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01258. eCollection 2019.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01258
PMID:31258500
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6587366/
Abstract

The current research investigates the impact of careless responding on factorial analytic results and construct validity with real data. Results showed that inclusion of careless respondents in data analysis distorts factor loading pattern and hinders recovery of theoretical existing factors. Careless respondents also blur the distinction of theoretically distinct factors, resulting in higher inter-factor correlations. That careless responding may threaten convergent validity also receives limited support. Researchers are advised to exclude careless respondents before statistical analysis.

摘要

当前的研究利用真实数据调查了粗心作答对因子分析结果和结构效度的影响。结果表明,在数据分析中纳入粗心的受访者会扭曲因子载荷模式,并阻碍理论上存在的因子的恢复。粗心的受访者还模糊了理论上不同因子的区分,导致因子间的相关性更高。粗心作答可能会威胁到收敛效度这一观点也得到了有限的支持。建议研究人员在进行统计分析之前排除粗心的受访者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3fe/6587366/2ae46ab462c0/fpsyg-10-01258-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3fe/6587366/2ae46ab462c0/fpsyg-10-01258-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3fe/6587366/2ae46ab462c0/fpsyg-10-01258-g0001.jpg

相似文献

1
Careless Responding Threatens Factorial Analytic Results and Construct Validity of Personality Measure.粗心作答会威胁到因素分析结果和人格测量的结构效度。
Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 14;10:1258. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01258. eCollection 2019.
2
A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data.一入调查深似海,数据垃圾全都来:评估人格调查数据中草率作答的影响。
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Dec;52(6):2489-2505. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01401-8.
3
Identifying Careless Responding With the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised Validity Scales.识别粗心反应与精神病态人格量表修订版的效度。
Assessment. 2018 Jan;25(1):31-39. doi: 10.1177/1073191116641507. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
4
The Assessment and Impact of Careless Responding in Routine Outcome Monitoring within Mental Health Care.常规心理健康护理中的草率反应评估及其影响。
Multivariate Behav Res. 2019 Jul-Aug;54(4):593-611. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2018.1563520. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
5
Dealing with Careless Responding in Survey Data: Prevention, Identification, and Recommended Best Practices.处理调查数据中的粗心作答:预防、识别及推荐的最佳实践
Annu Rev Psychol. 2023 Jan 18;74:577-596. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-040422-045007. Epub 2022 Aug 16.
6
Detecting Careless Responding in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires.在多维强制选择问卷中检测粗心作答情况
Educ Psychol Meas. 2024 Oct;84(5):887-926. doi: 10.1177/00131644231222420. Epub 2024 Jan 12.
7
Modeling careless responding in ambulatory assessment studies using multilevel latent class analysis: Factors influencing careless responding.使用多水平潜在类别分析对动态评估研究中的粗心作答进行建模:影响粗心作答的因素
Psychol Methods. 2025 Apr;30(2):374-392. doi: 10.1037/met0000580. Epub 2023 May 11.
8
Using heterogeneous sources of data and interpretability of prediction models to explain the characteristics of careless respondents in survey data.利用异质数据源和预测模型的可解释性来解释调查数据中粗心应答者的特征。
Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 17;13(1):13417. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40209-2.
9
Careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of practices and prevalence.众包酒精研究中的粗心回应:实践和流行率的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022 Aug;30(4):381-399. doi: 10.1037/pha0000546. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
10
Detecting Careless Responding in Survey Data Using Stochastic Gradient Boosting.使用随机梯度提升法检测调查数据中的粗心应答情况。
Educ Psychol Meas. 2022 Feb;82(1):29-56. doi: 10.1177/00131644211004708. Epub 2021 Apr 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding professional development challenges of Chinese public health professionals: association and prediction analyses with data validity screening.理解中国公共卫生专业人员的职业发展挑战:基于数据有效性筛选的关联和预测分析。
Front Public Health. 2023 Aug 31;11:1250606. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1250606. eCollection 2023.
2
Implementation of Flexible Work Arrangement among Healthcare Workers in Miri Hospital-Assessment of the Validity and Reliability of Flexible Work Arrangement Perceived Benefits and Barriers Scale, and the Exploratory Study.美里医院医护人员灵活工作安排的实施——灵活工作安排感知收益与障碍量表的效度和信度评估及探索性研究
Malays J Med Sci. 2022 Dec;29(6):89-103. doi: 10.21315/mjms2022.29.6.9. Epub 2022 Dec 22.
3

本文引用的文献

1
What Causes the Mean Bias of the Likelihood Ratio Statistic with Many Variables?多个变量时似然比统计量的平均偏差是由什么引起的?
Multivariate Behav Res. 2019 Nov-Dec;54(6):840-855. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1596060. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
2
Understanding the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices.理解模型大小对结构方程模型拟合指数的影响。
Educ Psychol Meas. 2019 Apr;79(2):310-334. doi: 10.1177/0013164418783530. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
3
Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data.响应不足:调查数据中一个隐蔽混杂因素的检验。
The effects of careless responding on the fit of confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory models.粗心反应对验证性因素分析和项目反应理论模型拟合的影响。
Behav Res Methods. 2024 Feb;56(2):577-599. doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02074-9. Epub 2023 Feb 3.
4
Effects of Response Option Order on Likert-Type Psychometric Properties and Reactions.回答选项顺序对李克特式心理测量特性及反应的影响。
Educ Psychol Meas. 2022 Dec;82(6):1107-1129. doi: 10.1177/00131644211069406. Epub 2022 Jan 13.
J Appl Psychol. 2015 May;100(3):828-45. doi: 10.1037/a0038510. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
4
Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.探索性结构方程模型:探索性和验证性因子分析最佳特征的整合。
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85-110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700. Epub 2013 Dec 2.
5
Reversed item bias: an integrative model.反向项目偏差:一个综合模型。
Psychol Methods. 2013 Sep;18(3):320-34. doi: 10.1037/a0032121. Epub 2013 May 6.
6
When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions.类别变量在何时可以视为连续变量?在次优条件下稳健连续和类别 SEM 估计方法的比较。
Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):354-73. doi: 10.1037/a0029315. Epub 2012 Jul 16.
7
Identifying careless responses in survey data.识别调查数据中的粗心回答。
Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):437-55. doi: 10.1037/a0028085. Epub 2012 Apr 16.
8
The HEXACO-60: a short measure of the major dimensions of personality.人格的大六因素问卷(HEXACO-60):一种简短的人格主要维度测量工具。
J Pers Assess. 2009 Jul;91(4):340-5. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878.
9
Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: two new facet scales and an observer report form.关于HEXACO人格量表的进一步评估:两个新的子量表和一份观察者报告表。
Psychol Assess. 2006 Jun;18(2):182-91. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182.