2012
DOI: 10.11560/jahp.25.1_31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of item wording direction and grouping on psychological measures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These items clearly require recoding the added method variance due to the reversed phrasing used in the construct definition. Findings in this regard indicate that phrasing an item in a way that is opposed to the definition of the construct introduces variability that is not associated with the construct, and in research concerning psychosocial work factors and their effects, content that is phrased in this way may lead to a different pattern of response options [58]. This problem challenges the assumption of an equal interval measurement of the items.…”
Section: Nonparametric Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…These items clearly require recoding the added method variance due to the reversed phrasing used in the construct definition. Findings in this regard indicate that phrasing an item in a way that is opposed to the definition of the construct introduces variability that is not associated with the construct, and in research concerning psychosocial work factors and their effects, content that is phrased in this way may lead to a different pattern of response options [58]. This problem challenges the assumption of an equal interval measurement of the items.…”
Section: Nonparametric Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…These psychological subscales or indictors revealed acceptable level of reliability with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.7541. In line with the study conducted by Schaufeli et al (2002), employee engagement was measured by the following three subscales: dedication, vigour and absorption. Their level of reliability was acceptable with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.7801.…”
Section: Research Instrumentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the TCCNI-R Japanese version, five questions were negatively stated (Yokotani et al, 2021). The formulation of the negatively stated question items usually effects a decrease in the bias of participant responses (Paulhus, 1991); however, a possible problem may arise when these items result in forming another factor or may influence the reliability of the instrument (Masuda et al, 2012). Therefore, in the TCCNI-RePract English version, the researchers did not formulate any negatively stated items, but rather, modified some items: From 25 items, 10 items were the same as the previous TCCNI-R, and 15 items were modified.…”
Section: Instrument and Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%