The Association Between Person-Fit and Extreme Response Style

Year 2022, Issue: 55, 27 - 45, 28.04.2022

Akif Avcu

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.836567

Abstract

Extreme response style (ERS) refers to a disproportionate preference for endpoint options in Likert type or rating scale items, regardless of their content. The ERS has the potential to deteriorate the fit of the measurement model in use. In the current study, it was proposed that the use of the ERS is one possible cause of aberrant response patterns. In the context of item response theory (IRT), aberrant response patterns are also known as misfit responses, and these patterns are investigated using person-fit statistics. Accordingly, the aim of this study was determined to investigate whether the ERS is associated with misfit response patterns. Using a convenient sampling method, personality data from 727 university students were collected for this aim using the Basic Personality Traits Inventory (BPTI). The findings revealed that people who use the ERS were more likely to produce misfit response patterns. The results were consistent for both the lower-tail and the upper-tail ERS use. Based on the findings, it was concluded that the ERS is one plausible reason for a person's misfit in the context of personality m. More in-depth analyses of the link between the ERS and person-fit are encouraged.

Keywords

extreme response style, person-fit, item response theory

Kişi Uyumu ve Uç Yanıt Stili Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Uç yanıt stili (UYS), içeriği ne olursa olsun, Likert tipi veya derecelendirme ölçeği ile puanlanan maddelerde uç yanıt seçeneklerinin orantısız bir şekilde tercih edilmesini ifade eder. UYS, kullanılan ölçüm modelinin uyumunu bozma potansiyeline sahiptir. Mevcut çalışmada, UYS'nin kullanımının normal olmayan yanıt modellerinin olası bir nedeni olduğu varsayılmıştır. Madde tepki kuramı (MKT) bağlamında, normal olmayan yanıt örüntüleri aynı zamanda uyum göstermeyen yanıtlar olarak da bilinir ve bu örüntüler, kişi-uyum istatistikleri kullanılarak incelenir. Buna doğrultuda, bu çalışmanın amacı, UYS'nin uyum göstermeyen yanıt örüntüleri ile bağlantılı olup olmadığını araştırmak olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda uygun örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak Temel Kişilik Özellikleri Envanteri (TKÖE) ile 727 üniversite öğrencisinden veriler toplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, UYS'yi kullanan kişilerin uyum göstermeyen yanıt örüntülerini üretme olasılıklarının daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, hem alt uç hem de üst uç UYS kullanımı için tutarlıdır. Bulgulara dayanarak, UYS'nin kişilik ölçümü bağlamında kişi uyum göstermemesinin muhtemel bir sebebi olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. UYS ve kişi uyumu arasındaki bağlantının daha derinlemesine analiz edilmesi önerilmiştir.

Keywords

uç yanıt stili, kişi uyumu, madde tepki kuramı.

References

• Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Egan, V. (2006). Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and individual differences, 40(6), 1235-1245.
• Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation. Journal of marketing research, 38(2), 143-156.
• Brown, R. S., & Villarreal, J. C. (2007). Correcting for person misfit in aggregated score reporting. International journal of testing, 7(1), 1-25.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and psychological measurement, 6(4), 475-494.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1950). Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design. Educational and psychological measurement, 10(1), 3-31.
• Dodeen, H., & Darabi, M. (2009). Person‐fit: relationship with four personality tests in mathematics. Research papers in education, 24(1), 115-126.
• Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., and Williams, E. A. (1985) Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(1), 67-86.
• Embretson, S. E., Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ferrando, P. J. (2007). Factor-analytic procedures for assessing response pattern scalability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 481-507.
• Ferrando, P. J. (2012). Assessing inconsistent responding in E and N measures: An application of person-fit analysis in personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 718-722.
• Gençöz, T. & Öncül, Ö. (2012). Examination of Personality Characteristics in a Turkish Sample: Development of the Basic Personality Traits Inventory. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(3), 194-216.
• Greenleaf, E. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 328-351.
• Hurley, J. R. (1998). Timidity as a response style to psychological questionnaires. Journal of Psychology, 132, 201-210.
• International Test Commission (2014). ITC Guidelines for Quality Control in Scoring, Test Analysis, and Reporting of Test Scores. Available online at: http://intestcom.org (Accessed Novenber, 10, 2020)
• Jain, U., & Agrawal, L. (1977). Generality of extreme response style. Journal of psychological researches, 21, 67–72.
• Jorge N. Tendeiro, Rob R. Meijer, A. Susan M. Niessen (2016). PerFit: An R Package for Person-Fit Analysis in IRT. Journal of Statistical Software, 74(5), 1-27. for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
• Karabatsos, G. (2003). Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person-fit statistics. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(4), 277-298.
• Kyllonen, P. C. (2008). The research behind the ETS Personal Potential Index (PPI). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Landers, R. N., Sackett, P. R., & Tuzinski, K. A. (2011). Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 202-210.
• Lomax, R. G. (1986). The effect of measurement error in structural equation modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 157-162
• Lord, F.M. & Novıck, M.R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001).Methodology review: Evaluating person fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 107-135.
• Meijer,R.R., Niessen, A.S.M., and Tendeiro,J.N. (2015). Apractical guide to check the consistency of item response patterns in clinical research through person-fit statistics examples and a computer program. Assessment, 23, 52-62.
• Moors, G. (2010). Ranking the ratings: A latent-class regression model to control for overall agreement in opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 93–119.
• Naemi, B. D., Beal, D. J., & Payne, S. C. (2009). Personality predictors of extreme response style. Journal of Personality, 77, 261-286.
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991), “Measurement and control of response bias,” in measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and Lawrence S. Wright, eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 17-59.
• Petridou, A., & Williams, J. (2007). Accounting for aberrant test response patterns using multilevel models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 227–247.
• Reise, S. P., and Waller, N. G. (1990). Applications of response pattern aberrancy analysis to personality assessment. Unpublished manuscript.
• Reynolds, C. R. (2010). Measurement and assessment: An editorial view. Psychological Assessment, 22, 1-4.
• Rupp, André A. (2013). A systematic review of the methodology for person fit research in Item Response Theory: Lessons about generalizability of inferences from the design of simulation studies. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(1), 3-38.
• Felt, J. M., Castaneda, R., Tiemensma, J., and Depaoli, S. (2017). Using Person Fit Statistics to Detect Outliers in Survey Research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 863.
• Ferrando, P. J., and Chico, E. (2003). Detecting dissimulation in personality test scores: a comparison between person-fit indices and detection scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 63, 636–654.
• St-Onge, C., Valois, P., Abdous, B., & Germain, S. (2011). Accuracy of person-fit statistics: A Monte Carlo study of the influence of aberrance rates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(6), 419-432.
• Tatsuoka, K. K. (1996). Use of generalized person-fit indices, zetas for statistical pattern classification. Applied Measurement in Education. 9, 65-75.
• Tianshu P. & Yue Y. (2017) Using the Bayes Factors to Evaluate Person Fit in the Item Response Theory, Applied Measurement in Education, 30(3), 213-227.
• Vaerenbergh, Y.V., & Thomas, T.D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 196-217.
• Viswanathan, M. (2005). Measurement error and research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Weijters, B. (2006). Response styles in consumer research. Ghent University. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent, Belgium.
• Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.
• Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15, 96-110. Zickar, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 71–88.