2012
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.645936
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Method Effects: The Problem With Negatively Versus Positively Keyed Items

Abstract: Using confirmatory factor analyses, we examined method effects on Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) in a sample of older European adults. Nine hundred forty nine community-dwelling adults 60 years of age or older from 5 European countries completed the RSES as well as measures of depression and life satisfaction. The 2 models that had an acceptable fit with the data included method effects. The method effects were associated with both positively and negatively worded items. Method effects m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

18
160
3
8

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(189 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
18
160
3
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Method effects associated with NW items have received special attention in the psychometric literature (e.g., Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale; Lindwall et al, 2012;Marsh, 1996;Tomás & Oliver, 1999). In the case of the GHQ-12, a few recent works have focused on analyzing wording effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Method effects associated with NW items have received special attention in the psychometric literature (e.g., Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale; Lindwall et al, 2012;Marsh, 1996;Tomás & Oliver, 1999). In the case of the GHQ-12, a few recent works have focused on analyzing wording effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…contrast, other researchers consider the bi-dimensionality of a measure to be an artifact of item-keying and recommend the exclusion of reverse-keyed items (e.g., Lindwall et al, 2012;Magazine, Williams, & Williams, 1996;Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995;Schriesheim, Eisenbach, & Hill, 1991;van Sonderen, Sanderman, & Coyne, 2013). We believe that these decisions are being made without a clear understanding of why item-keying has the effects it does.…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Our third objective addresses the implications of the recent recommendation that researchers use measures with only regularly keyed items (e.g., Lindwall et al, 2012;Magazine et al, 1996;Schriesheim et al, 1991;Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995;van Sonderen et al, 2013). This recommendation is based to a large extent on the evidence of the effects of item-keying on dimensionality, but also on the desire to reduce survey length or increase the number of constructs measured in a study.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When method effects are not accounted for, they have been shown to affect the goodness of fit statistics, lead to biased parameter estimates (e.g., Chiu 2012Chiu , 2008Bagozzi 1993;Quilty et al 2009;Marsh 1994Marsh , 1996Distefano and Motl 2009;Marsh et al 2013;Lindwall et al 2012;Tomǭs et al 2013;Horan et al 2003;Magazine et al 1996) and influence the validity and reliability of the scale (e.g., Roszkowski and Soven 2010;Woods 2006;Raykov 2001;Brown 2015). Moreover, the method effect can lead to wrong inferences by suppressing or inflating the relationships between constructs by contributing to Type I or Type II errors if not incorporated into the measurement model (e.g., Bagozzi 1993; Magazine et al 1996).…”
Section: Methods Effects: the Negative Item Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%