The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measure Twice, Cut down Error: A Process for Enhancing the Validity of Survey Scales
Open accessAbstract
For years psychologists across many subfields have undertaken the formidable challenge of designing survey scales to assess attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Correspondingly, scholars have written much to guide researchers in this undertaking. Yet, many new scales violate established best practices in survey design, suggesting the need for a new approach to designing surveys. This article presents 6 steps to facilitate the construction of questionnaire scales. Unlike previous processes, this one front loads input from other academics and potential respondents in the item-development and revision phase with the goal of achieving credibility across both populations. Specifically, the article describes how (a) a literature review and (b) focus group–interview data can be (c) synthesized into a comprehensive list to facilitate (d) the development of items. Next, survey designers can subject the items to (e) an expert review and (f) cognitive pretesting before executing a pilot test.
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
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Willis, G. (2005) · doi:10.4135/9781412983655 · Cited by 1,778 · cited 3×
“Thus, experts often advise identifying clear trends from multiple respondents about a potentially problematic item before making changes (Willis, 2005).”
BackgroundFactor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology
Comrey, A. L. (1988) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.56.5.754 · Cited by 1,154
Wentzel, K. R. (2002) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00406 · Cited by 797
Assessing Three Sources of Misresponse to Reversed Likert Items
Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.1.116 · Cited by 386
Cited by
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x15584327 · Cited by 993
Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory
Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002 · Cited by 554
Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., & Linn, J. S. (2019) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000431 · Cited by 214
Schwarz (1999) · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002002 · Cited by 67
Flake, J. K. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1898962 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E.
- Venue
- Review of General Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 380-387
- ISSN
- 1089-2680 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1552
- OpenAlex
- W2016475235
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 7.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
