The Association Between Person-Fit and Extreme Response Style
Öz
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.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 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.