Careless responding threatens factorial analytic results and construct validity of personality measure
Open accessAbstract
The current research investigates the impact of careless responding on factorial analytic results and construct validity with real data. Results showed that inclusion of careless respondents in data analysis distorts factor loading pattern and hinders recovery of theoretical existing factors. Careless respondents also blur the distinction of theoretically distinct factors, resulting in higher inter-factor correlations. That careless responding may threaten convergent validity also receives limited support. Researchers are advised to exclude careless respondents before statistical analysis.
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
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.
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?
Careless responses can compromise data quality and accuracy, weaken relationships among survey variables, and impact factor loading and structure.
“These responses can compromise the quality and accuracy of the data, weaken the relationships among survey variables, and impact factor loading and structure”
From Measuring undergraduate students’ reliance on generative AI during problem-solving: Scale development and validation. (2025) · cites this paper as Kam, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029315 · Cited by 2,816 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Ashton M. C. Lee K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: a short measure of the major dimensions of personality. J. Personal. Assess. 91, 340– 345. 10.1080/00223890902935878 20017063 · DOI
- Asparouhov T. Muthen B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct. Eq. Model. 16, 397– 438. 10.1080/10705510903008204 · DOI
- Crede M. (2010). Random responding as a threat to the validity of effect size estimates in correlational research. Edu. Psychol. Measure. 70, 596– 612. 10.1177/0013164410366686 · DOI
- DeSimone J. A. DeSimone A. J. Harms P. D. Wood D. (2018). The differential impacts of two forms of insufficient effort responding. Appl. Psychol. 67, 309– 338. 10.1111/apps.12117 · DOI
- Fan X. Sivo S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivar. Behav. Res. 42, 509– 529. 10.1080/00273170701382864 · DOI
- Hilbig B. E. Zettler I. Leist F. Heydasch T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personal. Indivi. Diff. 54, 598– 603. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.008 · DOI
- Huang J. L. Curran P. G. Keeney J. Poposki E. M. DeShon R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding. J. Business Psychol. 27, 99– 114. 10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8 · DOI
- Huang J. L. Liu M. Bowling N. A. (2015). Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 828– 845. 10.1037/a0038510 25495093 · DOI
- Jonas K. Broemer P. Diehl M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11, 35– 74. 10.1080/14792779943000125 · DOI · Paper page
- Kam C. C. S. Chan H. H. C. (2018). Examination of the validity of instructed response items in identifying careless respondents. Personal. Individ. Diff. 129, 83– 87. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.022 · DOI
- Kam C. C. S. Fan X. (2018). Investigating response heterogeneity in the context of positively and negatively worded items using factor mixture modeling. Org. Res. Methods. 10.1177/1094428118790371 · DOI
- Kam C. C. S. Meyer J. P. (2015). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: the case of job satisfaction. Org. Res. Methods 18, 512– 541. 10.1177/1094428115571894 · DOI
- Lee K. Ashton M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychol. Assess. 18, 182– 191. 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182 16768594 · DOI
- Maniaci M. R. Rogge R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: participant inattention and its effects on research. J. Res. Personal. 48, 61– 83. 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008 · DOI · Paper page
- Marsh H. W. Morin A. J. S. Parker P. D. Kaur G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: Integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10, 85– 110. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700 24313568 · DOI
- McGonagle A. K. Huang J. L. Walsh B. M. (2016). Insufficient effort survey responding: An under-appreciated problem in work and organisational health psychology research. Appl. Psychol. 65, 287– 321. 10.1111/apps.12058 · DOI
- Shi D. Lee T. Maydeu-Olivares A. (2018). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Edu. Psychol. Measure. 79, 310– 334. 10.1177/0013164418783530 30911195 PMC6425088 · DOI
- Tourangeau R. Rips L. J. Rasinski K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Weijters B. Baumgartner H. Schillewaert N. (2013). Reversed item bias: an integrative model. Psychol. Methods 18, 320– 334. 10.1037/a0032121 23646990 · DOI
- Yuan K. H. Fan C. Zhao Y. (2019). What causes the mean bias of the likelihood ratio statistic with many variables? Multivar. Behav. Res. 8, 1- 16. 10.1080/00273171.2019.1596060 30958035 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hou, C., Zhu, G., Sudarshan, V., Lim, F. S., & Ong, Y. S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105329 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Hou, C., Zhu, G., & Sudarshan, V. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13613 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kam, C. C. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Macau (MO)
- Corresponding author
- Kam, Chester Chun Seng
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2019-06-14
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 1258-1258
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6587366
- OpenAlex
- W2950356928
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Universidade de Macau
- 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 › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Keywords
- careless responding, personality measures, construct validity, factor structure, factor loadings, convergent validity, factorial analysis
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
