Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article
Free AccessEditorial

Current Challenges, New Developments, and Future Directions in Scale Construction

Published Online:September 19, 2016https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000375
Free first page

References

  • American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Au, N. & Lorgelly, P. (2014). Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: an analysis of response consistency. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1721–1731. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baumgartner, H. & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143–156. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Beatty, P. C. & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brunner, M. & Süß, H. M. (2005). Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: An example from intelligence research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 227–240. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bolt, D. M., Lu, Y. & Kim, J. (2014). Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 528–541. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and prototypically dominant acts. Journal of Personality, 48, 379–392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00840.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chevalier, A. & Fielding, A. (2011). An Introduction to Anchoring Vignettes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174, 569–574. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crane, M., Rissel, C., Greaves, S. & Gebel, K. (2016). Correcting bias in self-rated quality of life: An application of anchoring vignettes and ordinal regression models to better understand QoL differences across commuting modes. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 25, 257–266. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/417/art%3A10.1007%2FBF02310555.pdf?auth66=1407595415_4605f078b28cec2fcecedbb9e76e4c47&ext=.pdf First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391–418. doi: 10.1177/0013164404266386 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Danner, D., Aichholzer, J. & Rammstedt, B. (2015). Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity, and stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119–130. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability what they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930–944. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gu, F., Little, T. D. & Kingston, N. M. (2013). Misestimation of reliability using coefficient alpha and structural equation modeling when assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated errors are violated. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9, 30–40. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000052 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Janssen, A. B., Schultze, M. & Grötsch, A. (2015). Following the Ants. In European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000299 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Jürges, H. & Winter, J. (2013). Are anchoring vignettes ratings sensitive to vignette age and sex? Health Economics, 22, 1–13. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • King, G., Murray, C. L., Salomon, J. A. & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross – cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 97, 567–583. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leite, W., Huang, I. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an ant colony optimization algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 411–431. doi: 10.1080/00273170802285743 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lenzner, T., Neuert, C. & Otto, W. (2016). Cognitive pretesting. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (GESIS Survey Guidelines). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Marcoulides, G. A. & Drenzer, Z. (2003). Model specifications searchers using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 154–164. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McBride, L. & Moran, G. (1967). Double agreement as a function of item ambiguity and susceptibility to demand implications of the psychological situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 115–118. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Moors, G., Kieruj, N. D. & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). The effect of labeling and numbering of response scales on the likelihood of response bias. Sociological Methodology, 44, 369–399. doi: 10.1177/0081175013516114 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mottus, R., Allik, J., Realo, A., Pullmann, H., Rossier, G., Zecca, G., … Tseung, C. N. (2012). Comparability of self-reported conscientiousness across 21 countries. European Journal of Personality, 26, 303–317. doi: 10.1002/per.840 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Olaru, G., Witthöft, M. & Wilhelm, O. (2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale Big-Five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 56–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Padilla, M. A. & Divers, J. (2013). Coefficient omega bootstrap confidence intervals: Nonnormal distributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 956–972. doi: 10.1177/0013164413492765 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. RobinsonP. R. ShaverL. S. WrightsmanEds., Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Primi, R., Zanon, C., Santos, D., De Fruit, F. & John, O. P. (2016). Can they make adolescent self-reports of social-emotional skills more reliable, discriminant, and criterion-valid? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 39–51. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Rammstedt, B., Beierlein, C., Brähler, E., Eid, M., Hartig, J., Kersting, M., … Weichselgartner, E. (2015). Quality standards for the development, application, and evaluation of measurement instruments in social science survey research RatSWD Working Papers 245, http://www.ratswd.de/dl/RatSWD_WP_245.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rammstedt, B. & Farmer, R. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1137–1145. doi: 10.1037/a0033323 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raykov, T. & Pohl, S. (2013). On studying common factor variance in multiple-component measuring instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 191–209. doi: 10.1177/0013164412458673 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145–154. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Robie, C., Brown, D. J. & Beaty, J. C. (2007). Do people fake on personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 489–509. doi: 10.1007/s10869-007-9038-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P. & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150. doi: 10.1037/met0000045 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792363/pdf/11336_2008_Article_9101.pdf First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thalmayer, A. G. & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire big six in 26 nations: Developing cross-culturally applicable big six, big five and big two inventories. European Journal of Personality, 28, 482–496. doi: 10.1002/per.1969 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trott, D. M. & Jackson, D. N. (1967). An experimental analysis of acquiescence. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 2, 278–288. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wetzel, E., Böhnke, J. R., Carstensen, C. H., Ziegler, M. & Ostendorf, F. (2013). Do individual response styles matter? Journal of Individual Differences, 34, 69–81. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000102 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Willis, G. (2004). Cognitive Interviewing Revisited: A useful technique, in theory?. In S. PresserJ. M. RothgebM. P. CouperJ. T. LesslerE. MartinJ. MartinE. E. SingerEds., Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 299–317). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Yang, Y. & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377–392. doi: 10.1177/0734282911406668 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zhang, Z. & Yuan, K.-H. (2016). Robust coefficients alpha and omega and confidence intervals with outlying observations and missing data: Methods and software. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 387–411. doi: 10.1177/0013164415594658 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2011). Applicant faking: A look into the black box. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 49, 29–36. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2014). Stop and state your intentions! Let’s not forget the ABC of test construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 239–242. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000228 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2015). “F*** you, I won’t do what you told me!” Response biases as threats to psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 153–158. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000292 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. & Brunner, M. (2016). Test standards and psychometric modeling. In A. A. LipnevichF. PreckelR. RobertsEds., Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century (pp. 29–55). New York, NY: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. & Hagemann, D. (2015). Testing the unidimensionality of items: Pitfalls and loopholes. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 231–237. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000309 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., MacCann, C. & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. ZieglerC. MacCannR. D. RobertsEds., New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar