Cognitive psychology and self-reports: Models and methods
Abstract
This article describes the models and methods that cognitive psychologists and survey researchers use to evaluate and experimentally test cognitive issues in questionnaire design and subsequently improve self-report instruments. These models and methods assess the cognitive processes underlying how respondents comprehend and generate answers to self-report questions. Cognitive processing models are briefly described. Non-experimental methods--expert cognitive review, cognitive task analysis, focus groups, and cognitive interviews--are described. Examples are provided of how these methods were effectively used to identify cognitive self-report issues. Experimental methods--cognitive laboratory experiments, field tests, and experiments embedded in field surveys--are described. Examples are provided of: (a) how laboratory experiments were designed to test the capability and accuracy of respondents in performing the cognitive tasks required to answer self-report questions, (b) how a field experiment was conducted in which a cognitively designed questionnaire was effectively tested against the original questionnaire, and (c) how a cognitive experiment embedded in a field survey was conducted to test cognitive predictions.
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?
Self-report measures have questionable reliability in humans as well as LLMs.
“Self-report measures have been extensively used in psychology as well; but their reliability is questionable in humans (Jobe, 2003) as well as LLMs.”
From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Jobe, 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parry, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Sewall, C. J. R., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., & Quintana, D. S. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5 · Cited by 793 · see citing works
Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., Yeatts, K., & DeWalt, D. A. (2009) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-3 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Brédart, A., Marrel, A., Abetz-Webb, L., Lasch, K., & Acquadro, C. (2014) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-15 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Watt, T., Hegedüs, L., Rasmussen, Å. K., Groenvold, M., Bonnema, S. J., Bjorner, J. B., & Feldt-Rasmussen, U. (2007) · Thyroid · doi:10.1089/thy.2007.0069 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C. Y., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13988 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Stephens, E. C., Carswell, C. M., & Schumacher, M. M. (2006) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872006778606778 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jobe, J. B.
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-227
- ISSN
- 0962-9343
- 1573-2649
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
