Random Responding as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in Correlational Research

By Marcus Crede. 2010

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d293410854d7707ded03708ab055e0f50494bb2e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Will the Questions Ever End? Person-Level Increases in Careless Responding During Questionnaire Completion (2020, background): “…Long questionnaires may be necessary to adequately measure the variables of interest in a research project; however, the careless responding presumably found within long questionnaires may cause misleading research findings (see Credé, 2010; Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015; McGrath et al., 2010).”
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, background): “This type of response behavior has been labeled careless responding (Meade & Craig, 2012), insufficient effort responding (Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012), and random responding (Credé, 2010).”
The inter-item standard deviation (ISD): An index that discriminates between conscientious and random responders (2015, background): “This reduced variance decreases a study’s power and increases the likelihood that psychologists make Type II errors (Credé, 2010; Osborne & Blanchard, 2011).”
The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis (2020, unknown): “Certain types of studies might be more vulnerable to the influence of fraudulent respondents, such as correlational studies assessing low or high base-rate phenomena (Credé, 2010) or other types of observational studies or studies using observed moderators.”
Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research (2017, methodology): “Recent work has focused on comparing or categorizing screening techniques for use in survey data (Bowling et al., 2016; Credé, 2010; DeSimone, Harms, & DeSimone, 2015; Huang et al., 2012; Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014; Meade & Craig, 2012).”
Response Speed and Response Consistency as Mutually Validating Indicators of Data Quality in Online Samples (2017, background): “To the extent that the distribution of a person’s careless responses is systematically lower or higher than the responses given by other participants, these responses are not “random” but rather are expected to be disproportionately located in the extreme corners of the bivariate distributions of it”
Integrating Personality Structure, Personality Process, and Personality Development (2017, background): “acquiescent or careless responding) is probably underappreciated (Credé, 2010; Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015).”
The Conscientious Responders Scale (2014, background): “In a recent study, Credé (2010) showed that even low rates of random responding (e.g., 5”