Abstract
Acquiescence is a commonly observed response style that may distort respondent scores. One approach to control for acquiescence involves creating a balanced scale and computing sum scores. Other model-based approaches may explicitly include an acquiescence factor as part of a factor analysis or multidimensional item response model. Under certain assumptions, both approaches may result in acquiescence-controlled scores for each respondent. However, the validity of the resulting scores is one issue that is sometimes ignored. In this paper, we present an application of these approaches under both balanced and unbalanced scales, and we report changes in criterion validity and respondent scores.
This article is part of a research project supported by the Ayrton Senna Foundation. The first author also received a scholarship from the National Council on Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). Correspondence should be addressed to: Ricardo Primi, Universidade São Francisco, Rua Waldemar César da Silveira, 105, Campinas, São Paulo, CEP 13045-510; e-mail: rprimi@mac.com.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allen, M. S., Walter, E. E., & McDermott, M. S. (2017). Personality and sedentary behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 36(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000429.
Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5.
Cai, L. (2010). A two-tier full-information item factor analysis model with applications. Psychometrika, 75, 581–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9178-0.
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). MIRT: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i06/.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Publications.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/504455.
Huang, I.-C., Lee, J. L., Ketheeswaran, P., Jones, C. M., Revicki, D. A., & Wu, A. W. (2017). Does personality affect health-related quality of life? A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0173806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173806.
John, O., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.
Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 512–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115571894.
Knowles, E. S., & Nathan, K. T. (1997). Acquiescent responding in self-reports: cognitive style or social concern? Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2180.
Kyllonen, P. C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Personality, motivation, and college readiness: A prospectus for assessment and development. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12004.
Lipnevich, A. A., Preckel, F., & Roberts, R. D. (2016). Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21th century. New York: Springer.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2018). An integrated procedure to control for common method variance in survey data using random intercept factor analysis models. https://www.academia.edu/36641946/An_integrated_procedure_to_control_for_common_method_variance_in_survey_data_using_random_intercept_factor_analysis_models.
McCrae, R. R. (2018). Method biases in single-source personality assessments. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000566.
Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1991). Eliminating defense and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control: A 2 × 2 index. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786931.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrighsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996.
Poropat, A. E. (2014). A meta-analysis of adult-rated child personality and academic performance in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12019.
Primi, R., De Fruyt, F., Santos, D., Antonoplis, S. & John, O. P. (2018). True or False? Keying direction and acquiescence influence the validity of socio-emotional skills items in predicting high school achievement. Submitted paper under review.
Primi, R., Santos, D., De Fruyt, F., & John, O. P. (2019). Comparison of classical and modern methods for measuring and correcting for acquiescence. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology.
Primi, R., Santos, D., John, O. P., & De Fruyt, F. D. (2016). Development of an inventory assessing social and emotional skills in Brazilian youth. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000343.
Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014a). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.
Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014b). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2019). Optimizing the length, width, and balance of a personality scale: How do internal characteristics affect external validity? Psychological Assessment, 31, 586–590.https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000586.
Ten Berge, J. M. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3401_4.
Valentini, F. (2017). Editorial: Influência e controle da aquiescência na análise fatorial [Editorial: Acquiescence and factor analysis]. Avaliação Psicológica, 16, 120–121. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2017.1602.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018721.
Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2015). The Stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714.
Zhang, J., & Ziegler, M. (2018). Why do personality traits predict scholastic performance? A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.04.006.
Ziegler, M. (2015). “F*** You, I Won’t Do What You Told Me!”—Response biases as threats to psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000292.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Primi, R., Hauck-Filho, N., Valentini, F., Santos, D., Falk, C.F. (2019). Controlling Acquiescence Bias with Multidimensional IRT Modeling. In: Wiberg, M., Culpepper, S., Janssen, R., González, J., Molenaar, D. (eds) Quantitative Psychology. IMPS IMPS 2017 2018. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 265. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01309-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01310-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)