Identifying careless responses in survey data.

By Adam W. Meade, S. Bartholomew, Craig, S. Craig, Meade. Psychological methods, 2012

3,614 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/629a90a6c609b3ca26db71829b74b12e8f6bd353

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Paying Attention to Inattentive Survey Respondents (2019, background): “…checks, previous research suggests that indices capturing response patterns, such as overall response duration and frequency of nonattitudes, may provide valuable information about respondent attentiveness (Johnson 2005; Huang et al. 2012; Meade and Craig 2012; Maniaci and Rogge 2014; Curran 2016).”
The quality of data collected online: An investigation of careless responding in a crowdsourced sample (2020, background): “N ¼ 394 membership (SRSI UseMe, Bogus Item, IRI, response time, LongString, OEC, RIR, PTC, and open answer quality).”
Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research (2017, methodology): “Absent such norms, researchers may opt to flag respondents based on a logical cutoff point (e.g., faster than 2 s/item; Huang et al., 2012) or proportions of LQD estimated in the literature (Dunn et al., in press; Johnson, 2005; Meade & Craig, 2012).”
Will the Questions Ever End? Person-Level Increases in Careless Responding During Questionnaire Completion (2020, methodology): “We computed a longstring index from the 500 items included in the main questionnaire (see Huang et al., 2012; Johnson, 2005; Meade & Craig, 2012).”
The Evil Queen's Dilemma: Linking Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry to Benign and Malicious Envy (2016, methodology): “Based on criteria set a priori, we excluded one participant who indicated that we should not use the data because of careless responding (Meade & Craig, 2012).”
Why Celebrity Sells: A Dual Entertainment Path Model of Brand Endorsement (2014, background): “Meade and Craig (2012) recommend deleting these respondents, especially in anonymous Internet surveys, to ensure the quality of the data.”
Experience Sampling Methods: A Discussion of Critical Trends and Considerations for Scholarly Advancement (2018, background): “Indeed, some participants might select arbitrary response options to be eligible for an incentive; accordingly, checking for careless responses is important (Meade & Craig, 2012).”
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, methodology): “Longer questionnaires generally require the respondents to stay attentive for a longer period, so they tend to be more prone to careless responding than shorter ones (Meade & Craig, 2012).”
Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution (2018, background): “check” question has been shown by Meade and Craig (2012) to stimulate respondents to pay extra attention to the subsequent questions (not to detect dishonest replies).”
A Tale of Two Sample Sources: Do Results from Online Panel Data and Conventional Data Converge? (2018, background): “Likewise, Fleischer, Mead, and Huang (2015) found 15–20% of OPD respondents identified as inattentive, rates only somewhat higher than student samples (Meade & Craig, 2012).”