Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys

Careless responding measures are important for several purposes, whether it's screening for careless responding or for research centered on careless responding as a substantive variable. One such approach for assessing carelessness in surveys is the use of an instructional manipulation check. Despite its apparent popularity, little is known about the construct validity of instructional manipulation checks as measures of careless responding. Initial results are inconclusive, and no study has thoroughly evaluated the validity of the instructional manipulation check as a measure of careless responding. Across 2 samples (<i>N</i> = 762), we evaluated the construct validity of the instructional manipulation check under a nomological network. We found that the instructional manipulation check converged poorly with other measures of careless responding, weakly predicted participant inability to recognize study content, and did not display incremental validity over existing measures of careless responding. Additional analyses revealed that instructional manipulation checks performed poorly compared to single scores of other alternative careless responding measures and that screening data with alternative measures of careless responding produced greater or similar gains in data quality to instructional manipulation checks. Based on the results of our studies, we do not recommend using instructional manipulation checks to assess or screen for careless responding to surveys.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Psychological Measurement
Published
2024-09-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241284293
Primary Topic
Communication in Education and Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys

Nathan A. Bowling, Preston Menke, Mark C. Ramsey
Applied Psychological Measurement
Communication in Education and Healthcare
article

Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys

Nathan A. Bowling, Preston Menke, Mark C. Ramsey
article en

Abstract

Careless responding measures are important for several purposes, whether it's screening for careless responding or for research centered on careless responding as a substantive variable. One such approach for assessing carelessness in surveys is the use of an instructional manipulation check. Despite its apparent popularity, little is known about the construct validity of instructional manipulation checks as measures of careless responding. Initial results are inconclusive, and no study has thoroughly evaluated the validity of the instructional manipulation check as a measure of careless responding. Across 2 samples (<i>N</i> = 762), we evaluated the construct validity of the instructional manipulation check under a nomological network. We found that the instructional manipulation check converged poorly with other measures of careless responding, weakly predicted participant inability to recognize study content, and did not display incremental validity over existing measures of careless responding. Additional analyses revealed that instructional manipulation checks performed poorly compared to single scores of other alternative careless responding measures and that screening data with alternative measures of careless responding produced greater or similar gains in data quality to instructional manipulation checks. Based on the results of our studies, we do not recommend using instructional manipulation checks to assess or screen for careless responding to surveys.

Applied Psychological MeasurementVol. 48(7-8)
University of Central Florida (US), Wright State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Communication in Education and Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys — Nathan A. Bowling, Preston Menke, et al. · Applied Psychological Measurement (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS