The inter-item standard deviation (ISD): An index that discriminates between conscientious and random responders

Abstract Although random responding is prevalent and increases Type II errors, most psychologists avoid trying to identify it because the means to do so are extremely limited. We propose the inter-item standard deviation (ISD), a statistical index of response variance, is suited for this task. We hypothesized that random responders produce large ISDs because they respond to items all over a measure’s response range, whereas conscientious responders produce small ISDs because they respond to items more consistently. We administered a questionnaire containing the NEO-FFI-3 and an embedded validity scale to 134 university students. Another 134 responders were created using a random number generator. For all 268 responders, the ISD was calculated for each of the NEO-FFI-3′s five subscales and an aggregated ISD was calculated by averaging the five ISD indexes. Results showed that (1) random responders produce significantly larger ISDs than conscientious responders, (2) the ISDs were strongly correlated with the embedded validity scale and with one another, and (3) the ISDs correctly identified responders with greater than 80% classification accuracy. The mean ISD yielded greater than 95% classification accuracy. This study shows that responders can be identified by quantifying inter-item response variance.

[1]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  When does random responding distort self-report personality assessment? An example with the NEO PI-R , 2012 .

[2]  R. Charter Determining Random Responding to Objective Tests , 2000 .

[3]  J. Asendorpf Beyond stability: Predicting inter‐individual differences in intra‐individual change , 1992 .

[4]  S. Danish,et al.  Evaluation of data screening methods in surveys of adolescents' drug use. , 1991 .

[5]  R. Cribbie,et al.  The Average Distance Between Item Values , 2009 .

[6]  P. Costa,et al.  NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) : professional manual , 2010 .

[7]  M. Credé,et al.  Random Responding as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in Correlational Research , 2010 .

[8]  Elizabeth M. Poposki,et al.  Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys , 2012 .

[9]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Random Responding from Participants is a Threat to the Validity of Social Science Research Results , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[10]  A. Meade,et al.  Identifying careless responses in survey data. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[11]  Robert A. Cribbie,et al.  The Conscientious Responders Scale , 2014 .

[12]  Michael E. Clark,et al.  Detection of back random responding: effectiveness of MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory validity indices. , 2003, Psychological assessment.

[13]  P. Zimbardo,et al.  A Global Look at Time , 2014 .