The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Controlling Acquiescence Response Bias by Item Reversals: The Effect on Questionnaire Validity
Abstract
The prevailing conventional wisdom is that it is advisable to mix positively and negatively worded items in psychological measures to counteract acquiescence response bias. However, there has been virtually no unambiguous empirical evidence to support this recommendation. Thus, an experiment was conducted to evaluate the ability of subjects to respond accurately to both positive and reversed (negative) items on a questionnaire. Items from the LBDQ—XII Initiating Structure and Consideration subscales were used to create a written description of a fictitious manager. One hundred-fifty subjects, all upper-division business undergraduates, were given the written managerial description and then asked to complete a questionnaire containing the twenty Initiating Structure and Consideration items. The managerial descriptions were in two forms (to portray high and low Initiating Structure), and the questionnaires contained items in three forms (all positively worded, all negatively worded, and mixed). The data were evaluated using a one-way analysis of variance and post hoc t-tests. Significant differences in response accuracy were found between the item wording conditions. It was concluded that it may not be advisable to employ reversed (negatively-worded) items to control acquiescence response bias, as such changes may actually impair response accuracy.
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
Psychometric properties of the Ohio State leadership scales.
Schriesheim, C., & Kerr, S. (1974) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0037277 · Cited by 190
Self-citation
Cited by
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
The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future
Lewis, J. R. (2018) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307 · Cited by 1,958
McColl, E., Jacoby, A., Thomas, L., Soutter, J., Bamford, C., Steen, N., Thomas, R., Harvey, E., Garratt, A., & Bond, J. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5310 · Cited by 788
Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
Sonderen, E. V., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 · Cited by 544
Barnette, J. J. (2000) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131640021970592 · Cited by 529
Metadata
- Authors
- Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1981-12
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1101-1114
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2157169639
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.69
- 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: Controlling Acquiescence Response Bias by Item Reversals: The Effect on Questionnaire Validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001316448104100420
- The paper
- Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling Acquiescence Response Bias by Item Reversals: The Effect on Questionnaire Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100420
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.