首页> 外文期刊>Research & Politics >Much ado about acquiescence: The relative validity and reliability of construct-specific and agreea??disagree questions:
【24h】

Much ado about acquiescence: The relative validity and reliability of construct-specific and agreea??disagree questions:

机译:关于默许的事很多:特定于结构和共识的相对有效性和可靠性?不同意的问题:

获取原文
       

摘要

Acquiescence response bias, or the tendency to agree with questions regardless of content, is a prominent concern in survey design. An often proposed solution, and one that was recently implemented in the American National Election Study, is to rewrite response options so that they tap directly into the dimensions of the construct of interest. However, there is little evidence that this solution improves data quality. We present a study in which we employ two waves of the 2012 American National Election Study in order to compare the reliability and concurrent validity of political efficacy questions in both the agreea??disagree and construct-specific formats. Construct-specific questions were not only as reliable and valid as agreea??disagree questions generally, they were also as valid among respondents that were most likely to acquiesce. This suggests two possible outcomes: Either agreea??disagree questions do not negatively impact data quality or that construct-specific questions are not a panacea for acquiescence response bias.
机译:默许响应偏差或倾向于同意问题而与内容无关的倾向是调查设计中的主要问题。一种经常提出的解决方案是重写响应选项,以便它们直接利用感兴趣的结构的维度,并且最近在美国国家选举研究中得以实施。但是,几乎没有证据表明该解决方案可以提高数据质量。我们提出了一项研究,其中我们采用了两波2012年美国全国大选研究,以比较在同意,不同意和特定于结构的形式下政治效能问题的可靠性和同时有效性。特定于构建的问题不仅与普遍同意的问题一样可靠和有效,而且在最有可能默认的受访者中同样有效。这暗示了两个可能的结果:同意或不同意的问题不会对数据质量产生负面影响,或者特定于结构的问题不是默认响应偏差的灵丹妙药。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号