Cargando…

Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain

OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness of reverse worded items as a means of reducing or preventing response bias. We first distinguished between several types of response bias that are often confused in literature. We next developed arguments why reversing items is probably never a good way to ad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Sonderen, Eric, Sanderman, Robbert, Coyne, James C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729568/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23935915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
_version_ 1782278978846851072
author van Sonderen, Eric
Sanderman, Robbert
Coyne, James C.
author_facet van Sonderen, Eric
Sanderman, Robbert
Coyne, James C.
author_sort van Sonderen, Eric
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness of reverse worded items as a means of reducing or preventing response bias. We first distinguished between several types of response bias that are often confused in literature. We next developed arguments why reversing items is probably never a good way to address response bias. We proposed testing whether reverse wording affects response bias with item-level data from the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), an instrument that contains reversed worded items. METHODS: With data from 700 respondents, we compared scores on items that were similar with respect either to content or to direction of wording. Psychometric properties of sets of these items worded in the same direction were compared with sets consisting of both straightforward and reversed worded items. RESULTS: We did not find evidence that ten reverse-worded items prevented response bias. Instead, the data suggest scores were contaminated by respondent inattention and confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Using twenty items, balanced for scoring direction, to assess fatigue did not prevent respondents from inattentive or acquiescent answering. Rather, fewer mistakes are made with a 10-item instrument with items posed in the same direction. Such a format is preferable for both epidemiological and clinical studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3729568
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37295682013-08-09 Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain van Sonderen, Eric Sanderman, Robbert Coyne, James C. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness of reverse worded items as a means of reducing or preventing response bias. We first distinguished between several types of response bias that are often confused in literature. We next developed arguments why reversing items is probably never a good way to address response bias. We proposed testing whether reverse wording affects response bias with item-level data from the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), an instrument that contains reversed worded items. METHODS: With data from 700 respondents, we compared scores on items that were similar with respect either to content or to direction of wording. Psychometric properties of sets of these items worded in the same direction were compared with sets consisting of both straightforward and reversed worded items. RESULTS: We did not find evidence that ten reverse-worded items prevented response bias. Instead, the data suggest scores were contaminated by respondent inattention and confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Using twenty items, balanced for scoring direction, to assess fatigue did not prevent respondents from inattentive or acquiescent answering. Rather, fewer mistakes are made with a 10-item instrument with items posed in the same direction. Such a format is preferable for both epidemiological and clinical studies. Public Library of Science 2013-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3729568/ /pubmed/23935915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 Text en © 2013 Sonderen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
van Sonderen, Eric
Sanderman, Robbert
Coyne, James C.
Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title_full Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title_fullStr Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title_full_unstemmed Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title_short Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
title_sort ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let’s learn from cows in the rain
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729568/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23935915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
work_keys_str_mv AT vansondereneric ineffectivenessofreversewordingofquestionnaireitemsletslearnfromcowsintherain
AT sandermanrobbert ineffectivenessofreversewordingofquestionnaireitemsletslearnfromcowsintherain
AT coynejamesc ineffectivenessofreversewordingofquestionnaireitemsletslearnfromcowsintherain