Careless responding detection revisited: Accuracy of direct and indirect measures

To screen for careless responding, researchers have a choice between several direct measures (i.e., bogus items, requiring the respondent to choose a specific answer) and indirect measures (i.e., unobtrusive post hoc indices). Given the dearth of research in the area, we examined how well direct and indirect indices perform relative to each other. In five experimental studies, we investigated whether the detection rates of the measures are affected by contextual factors: severity of the careless response pattern, type of item keying, and type of item presentation. We fully controlled the information environment by experimentally inducing careless response sets under a variety of contextual conditions. In Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the personality of an actor that presented himself in a 5-min-long videotaped speech. In Studies 3, 4, and 5, participants had to rate their own personality across two measurements. With the exception of maximum longstring, intra-individual response variability, and individual contribution to model misfit, all examined indirect indices performed better than chance in most of the examined conditions. Moreover, indirect indices had detection rates as good as and, in many cases, better than the detection rates of direct measures. We therefore encourage researchers to use indirect indices, especially within-person consistency indices, instead of direct measures.