Using response latency to detect inaccurate responses in a computerized lifestyle assessment

Abstract This study evaluated the usefulness of response latency to differentiate between fake good and honest self-report to an adapted version of the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment (CLA). Seventy clients from an addiction treatment center were randomly assigned to either a fake good then honest or an honest then fake good instruction group. Multivariate analysis revealed that content scores under fake good instructions were greater than those for honest self-report. Differences in latencies for fake good and honest self-report were largely due to instruction order. Shorter latencies were associated with the second testing condition, regardless of instructions. However, latency scores for Emotional Health were shorter for fake good than honest self-report for both instruction groups. Discriminant analysis indicated that latency scores for Emotional Health provided the greatest discriminant power in differentiating between fake good and honest responses. The use of response latency is discussed in terms of passive and active computerized assessment strategies.

[1]  T. B. Rogers.  An analysis of two central stages underlying responding to personality items: The self-referent decision and response selection☆ , 1974 .

[2]  M. J. Noruésis,et al.  SPSS-X advanced statistics guide , 1985 .

[3]  James N. Butcher,et al.  The use of computers in psychological assessment: An overview of practices and issues. , 1987 .

[4]  R. Kuncel.  Response Processes and Relative Location of Subject and Item , 1973 .

[5]  H. Skinner,et al.  Challenge of computers in psychological assessment. , 1986 .

[6]  Thomas R. Kratochwill,et al.  Microcomputers in behavioral assessment: Recent advances and remaining issues , 1985 .

[7]  J. Butcher,et al.  Current developments and future directions in computerized personality assessment. , 1985 .

[8]  W. Deardorff.  Computerized Health Education: A Comparison with Traditional Formats , 1986, Health education quarterly.

[9]  Robert L. Stout.  New approaches to the design of computerized interviewing and testing systems , 1981 .

[10]  H. O'Neil,et al.  Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. , 1972, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[11]  C. Hanley.  The "Difficulty" of a Personality Inventory Item , 1962 .

[12]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Predicting consistent psychological test item responses: A comparison of models , 1988 .

[13]  Richard J. Harris.  A primer of multivariate statistics , 1975 .

[14]  H. Markus.  Self-schemata and processing information about the self. , 1977 .

[15]  H. Markus,et al.  Self-schemas and gender. , 1982 .

[16]  S. Millstein,et al.  Acceptability and Reliability of Sensitive Information Collected via Computer Interview , 1987 .

[17]  T. B. Rogers.  An analysis of the stages underlying the process of responding to personality items. , 1974, Acta psychologica.

[18]  H A Skinner,et al.  Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. , 1983, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[19]  D. Jackson,et al.  Structured personality test item characteristics and validity , 1985 .