TY  - JOUR
TT  - Detecting Careless Responses to Self-Reported Questionnaires
AU  - Kountur, Ronny
PY  - 2016
DA  - October
JF  - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
PB  - Özer DAŞCAN
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1302-597X
SP  - 0
EP  - 0
VL  - 16
IS  - 64
N2  - Problem Statement: The use of self-report questionnaires may lead to biases such as careless responses that distort the research outcomes. Early detection of careless responses in self-report questionnaires may reduce error, but little guidance exists in the literature regarding techniques for detecting such careless or random responses in self-report questionnaires. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the respondent‟s goodness-of-fit test score (RGF) can be used to indicate careless responses in completing self-report questionnaires. It is hypothesized that there is a significant difference of RGF between careless responses and true responses and that RGF of careless responses is higher than RGF for true responses. Method: An experimental research design that made use of a self-reported questionnaire was conducted with 205 respondents divided into two groups. The first group responded truthfully to the questionnaire while the second group responded carelessly to the questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire had been tested. One hundred and eighty five respondents were selected as the group of true responses, while another 20 respondents comprised the group of careless responses. T-test of independent sample was used to evaluate the different RGF among true responses and careless responses. Findings: After comparing the mean scores of RGF between careless responses and true responses, a significant difference was found. Thefrequency distribution of true responses tends to be normally distributed while the existence of careless responses creates a skewed distribution to the right. The RGF of careless responses is higher than the RGF of true responses. Conclusion and Recommendations: RGF may be used as an indicator of respondent‟s careless responses in self-report questionnaires in which more accurate data are expected. Social science research that makes use of self-report questionnaire in measuring affective domain may compute RGF to determine whether careless responses exist. Keywords: Careless response, Questionnaire development, Random response, Goodness-of-fit.
CR  - Begin, G., Boivin, M. & Bellerose, J. (1979). Sensitive data collection through the
CR  - random response technique: Some improvements. Journal of Psychology.
CR  - (1), 53-65.
CR  - Castro, R. (2013). Inconsistent respondents and sensitive questions. Field Methods.
CR  - (3), 283-298. doi: 10.1177/1525822X12466988
CR  - Conijn, J.M., Emons, W.H.M., Van Assen, M.A.L.M., Pedersen, S.S., & Sijtsma, K.
CR  - (2013). Explanatory, multilevel person-fit analysis of response consistency on
CR  - the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
CR  - (5), 692-718.
CR  - Crede, M. (2010). Random responding as a threat to the validity of effect size
CR  - estimates in correlational research. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
CR  - (4), 596-612.
CR  - Crino, M.D. (1985). The random response technique as an indicator of questionnaire
CR  - item social desirability/personal sensitivity. Educational and Psychological
CR  - Measurement, 45(3), 453-468.
CR  - Godinho, A., Kushnir, V., & Cunningham, J.A. (2016). Unfaithful findings:
CR  - Identifying careless responding in addictions research. Addiction, 111(6), 955-
CR  - Keeley, J.W., Webb, C., Peterson, D., Roussin, L., & Flanagan, E.H. (2016).
CR  - Development of a response inconsistency scale for the personality inventory
CR  - for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(4), 351-359.
CR  - Escobal, J., & Benites, S. (2013). PDAs in socio-economic surveys: instrument bias,
CR  - surveyor bias or both? International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
CR  - (1), 47-63. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.648420
CR  - Garcia, A.A. (2011). Cognitive interviews to test and refine questionnaires. Public
CR  - Health Nursing, 28(5), 444-450. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2010.00938.x
CR  - Johnson, T. P., & Wislar, J. S. (2012). Response rates and nonresponse errors in
CR  - surveys. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(17), 1805-1806.
CR  - Keller, G. & Warrack, B. (2016). Statistics for management and economics, 9th ed.
CR  - Australia: Thomson.
CR  - Lara, D., Garcia, S.G., Ellertson, C., Camlin, C. & Suarez, J. (2006). The measure of
CR  - induced abortion levels in Mexico using random response technique.
CR  - Sociaological Method & Research, 35(2), 279-301.
CR  - Meade, A.W., & Craig, S.B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data.
CR  - Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437-455.
CR  - Meyer, J.F., Fraust, K.A., Faust, D., Baker, A.M., & Cook, N.E. (2013). Careless and
CR  - random responding on clinical and research measures in the addictions: A
CR  - concerning problem and investigation of their detection. International Journal
CR  - of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(3), 292-306.
CR  - Penwarden, R. (2013, August). How to avoid nonresponse bias. FluidSurveys.
CR  - Retrieved from http://fluidsurveys.com/how-to-avoid-nonresponse-bias.
CR  - Reaser, J.M. (1975). A test of the forced-alternative random response questionnaire
CR  - technique. Technical Report no. 75-9.
CR  - Rogelberg, S.G., Fisher, G.G., Maynard, D.C., Hakel, M.D., & Horvath, M. (2001).
CR  - Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to
CR  - respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 3-25.
CR  - Rousseau, B., & Ennis, J.M. (2013). Importance of correct instructions in the Tetrad
CR  - test. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(4), 264-269. doi: 10.1111/joss.12049
CR  - Spector, Paul E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction.
CR  - California: Sage Publications, Inc. p. 30-31.
CR  - Sriramatr, S., Berry, T.R., Rodgers, W., & Stolp, S. (2012). The effect of different
CR  - response formats on ratings of exerciser stereotypes. Social Behavior and
CR  - Personality, 40(10), 1655-1666.
CR  - Summers, G.F., & Hammonds, A.D. (1969). Toward a paradigm for respondent bias
CR  - in survey research. Sociological Quarterly, 10(1), 113-121.
CR  - Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Boston:
CR  - Pearson, p. 661.
CR  - Tatsuoka & Tatsuoka (as cited in Harnisch, 1981). Analysis of item response
CR  - patterns: Consistency indices and their application to criterion-reference tests.
CR  - Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
CR  - Association, Long Angeles, April 13-17, 1981.
CR  - Thompson, B., Melancon, J.G., & Kier, F.J. (1998). Faking/random response scales for
CR  - the PPSDQ-93 measure of Jungian personality types. Paper presented at the
CR  - annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association (new Orleans, L.A.,
CR  - April).
CR  - Warner, S. L. (as cited in Begin, Boivin & Bellerose, 1979). Sensitive data collection
CR  - through the random response technique: Some improvements. Journal of
CR  - Psychology, 101(1), 53-65.
UR  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejer/issue//258641
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/225117
ER  -