Individual response spread in self-report scales: personality correlations and consequences
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People high in anxiety have a tendency to be more extreme in their responses, utilizing the endpoints of the scale more compared to those who hang around the midpoints.
“Maybe especially so in anxiety research as people whom are high in anxiety have a tendency to be more extreme in their responses utilizing the endpoints of the scale more compared to those who hang around the midpoints (Lewis and Taylor, 1955; Austin et al., 1998).”
From A Systematic Review of “Helicopter Parenting” and Its Relationship With Anxiety and Depression (2022) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 1998
People have been found to interpret and use the scales presented to them differently, possibly producing different scores between participants reflecting something other than what the questionnaire was created to measure.
“People have been found to interpret and use the scales presented to them differently possibly producing different scores between participants reflecting something other than what the questionnaire was created to measure (Austin et al., 1998).”
From A Systematic Review of “Helicopter Parenting” and Its Relationship With Anxiety and Depression (2022) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 1998
Cites
Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical evaluation
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844 · Cited by 2,237 · see citing works
Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient
Olsson, U. (1979) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296207 · Cited by 1,127 · see citing works
Anxiety and extreme response preferences
Lewis, N. A., & Taylor, J. A. (1955) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316445501500203 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cheng, C., Cheung, S. F., Chio, J. H.-M., & Chan, M.-P. S. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0028596 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Champion, L., Economides, M., & Chandler, C. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209482 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
“First, although we attempted to recruit a sample size in keeping with guidelines for pilot RCTs [27], our outcome measures were assessed online, and relied on self-reported questionnaires, which are noisy and open to interpretation [64].”
MethodA Systematic Review of “Helicopter Parenting” and Its Relationship With Anxiety and Depression
Vigdal, J. S., & Brønnick, K. K. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872981 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
- Authors
- Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Gibson, G. J., McGregor, M. J., & Dent, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Scottish Agricultural College (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Austin, Elizabeth J.
- Venue
- Personality and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 421-438
- ISSN
- 0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079376042
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- self-report scale, conscientiousness, personality traits, spurious correlations, response threshold, farmers, medical consultants
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
