The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Best practice recommendations for data screening
Abstract
Survey respondents differ in their levels of attention and effort when responding to items. There are a number of methods researchers may use to identify respondents who fail to exert sufficient effort in order to increase the rigor of analysis and enhance the trustworthiness of study results. Screening techniques are organized into three general categories, which differ in impact on survey design and potential respondent awareness. Assumptions and considerations regarding appropriate use of screening techniques are discussed along with descriptions of each technique. The utility of each screening technique is a function of survey design and administration. Each technique has the potential to identify different types of insufficient effort. An example dataset is provided to illustrate these differences and familiarize readers with the computation and implementation of the screening techniques. Researchers are encouraged to consider data screening when designing a survey, select screening techniques on the basis of theoretical considerations (or empirical considerations when pilot testing is an option), and report the results of an analysis both before and after employing data screening techniques. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 1×
“Also, the use of longer scales is associated with higher values for coefficient alpha (Cortina, 1993; Cronbach, 1951; Schmitt, 1996) and higher validities (Credé, Harms, Niehorster & Gaya-Valentine, 2012).”
BackgroundIdentifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865
Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
Schwarz, N. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.93 · Cited by 2,846
Cited by
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3 · Cited by 1,718
Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data
Curran, P. G. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006 · Cited by 1,356
Americans’ COVID-19 stress, coping, and adherence to CDC guidelines
Park, C. L., Russell, B. S., Fendrich, M., Finkelstein-Fox, L., Hutchison, M., & Becker, J. (2020) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-020-05898-9 · Cited by 728
Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A., & O'Regan, N. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121227 · Cited by 573
A Tale of Two Sample Sources: Do Results from Online Panel Data and Conventional Data Converge?
Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2019) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-018-9552-y · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Authors
- DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-13
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-181
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1928031482
- Cited by
- 679
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 65.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Best practice recommendations for data screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/job.1962
- The paper
- DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.