Search

Two different item response theory model frameworks have been proposed for the assessment and control of response styles in rating data. According to one framework, response styles can be assessed by analysing threshold parameters in Rasch models for ordinal data and in mixture-distribution extensions of such models. A different framework is provided by multi-process item response tree models, which can be used to disentangle response processes that are related to the substantive traits and response tendencies elicited by the response scale. In this tutorial, the two approaches are reviewed, illustrated with an empirical data set of the two-dimensional 'Personal Need for Structure' construct, and compared in terms of multiple criteria. Mplus is used as a software framework for (mixed) polytomous Rasch models and item response tree models as well as for demonstrating how parsimonious model variants can be specified to test assumptions on the structure of response styles and attitude strength. Although both frameworks are shown to account for response styles, they differ on the quantitative criteria of model selection, practical aspects of model estimation, and conceptual issues of representing response styles as continuous and multidimensional sources of individual differences in psychological assessment., (© 2017 The British Psychological Society.)

The conventional randomized response design is unidimensional in the sense that it measures a single dimension of a sensitive attribute, like its prevalence, frequency, magnitude, or duration. This paper introduces a multidimensional design characterized by categorical questions that each measure a different aspect of the same sensitive attribute. The benefits of the multidimensional design are (i) a substantial gain in power and efficiency, and the potential to (ii) evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the model, and (iii) test hypotheses about evasive response biases in case of a misfit. The method is illustrated for a two-dimensional design measuring both the prevalence and the magnitude of social security fraud.

Asking sensitive or personal questions in surveys or experimental studies can both lower response rates and increase item non-response and misreports. Although non-response is easily diagnosed, misreports are not. However, misreports cannot be ignored because they give rise to systematic bias. The purpose of this paper is to present a modeling approach that identifies misreports and corrects for them. Misreports are conceptualized as a motivated process under which respondents edit their answers before they report them. For example, systematic bias introduced by overreports of socially desirable behaviors or underreports of less socially desirable ones can be modeled, leading to more-valid inferences. The proposed approach is applied to a large-scale experimental study and shows that respondents who feel powerful tend to overclaim their knowledge.

Ratings of affect words are the most commonly used method to assess pleasant affect (PA) and unpleasant affect (UA). The reliance on self-reports would be problematic if affect ratings were heavily influenced by response styles. Several recent publications have indeed suggested (a) that the influence of response styles on affect ratings is pervasive, (b) that this influence can be controlled by variations of the response format using multitrait-multimethod models, and (c) the discriminant validity of PA and UA is spurious. In this article, we examined the evidence for these claims. We demonstrate that (a) response styles have a negligible effect on affect ratings, (b) multiple response formats produce the same results as a single response format, and (c) the discriminant validity of PA and UA is not a method artifact. Rather, evidence against discriminant validity is due to the use of inappropriate response formats that respondents interpreted as bipolar scales.