Intra-individual Response Variability as an Indicator of Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparison to Other Indicators and Relationships with Individual Differences

By Alexandra M. Dunn, Eric D. Heggestad, L. Shanock, Nels Theilgard. 2018

192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e7da94ea4ecbfaa5bfb80cc002a30b2534c1d48

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Peter Lucas Stöckli
2. Klaus Jonas
3. H. Annen
4. Philippe Goldammer

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Klaus Jonas
2. H. Annen

In Social Psychology

1. Peter Lucas Stöckli
2. Roi Reichart
3. Klaus Jonas
4. H. Annen
5. Philippe Goldammer

Citations in the corpus

• The Turker Blues: Hidden Factors Behind Increased Depression Rates Among Amazon’s Mechanical Turkers (2020, background): “Moreover, it is well established that different methods spot different types of inattentive participants (Dunn et al., 2018; Jones, House, & Gao, 2015), which implies that any use of one type of method might fail to catch all or most of the inattentive or fake participants.”
• Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, methodology): “In the case of the IRV, simply the within-person standard deviation of responses across a specific set of consecutive items is calculated (Dunn, Heggestad, Shanock, & Theilgard, 2018).”