IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v53y2024i2p898-939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Different Devices Perform Equally Well with Different Numbers of Scale Points and Response Formats? A test of measurement invariance and reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Natalja Menold
  • Vera Toepoel

Abstract

Research on mixed devices in web surveys is in its infancy. Using a randomized experiment, we investigated device effects (desktop PC, tablet and mobile phone) for six response formats and four different numbers of scale points. N = 5,077 members of an online access panel participated in the experiment. An exact test of measurement invariance and Composite Reliability were investigated. The results provided full data comparability for devices and formats, with the exception of continuous Visual Analog Scale (VAS), but limited comparability for different numbers of scale points. There were device effects on reliability when looking at the interactions with formats and number of scale points. VAS, use of mobile phones and five point scales consistently gained lower reliability. We suggest technically less demanding implementations as well as a unified design for mixed-device surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalja Menold & Vera Toepoel, 2024. "Do Different Devices Perform Equally Well with Different Numbers of Scale Points and Response Formats? A test of measurement invariance and reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(2), pages 898-939, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:898-939
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241221077237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241221077237
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241221077237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalja Menold & Anja Tausch, 2016. "Measurement of Latent Variables With Different Rating Scales," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(4), pages 678-699, November.
    2. William Meredith, 1993. "Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 525-543, December.
    3. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johan Oud & Manuel Voelkle, 2014. "Do missing values exist? Incomplete data handling in cross-national longitudinal studies by means of continuous time modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3271-3288, November.
    2. Liat Ayalon, 2018. "Perceived Age Discrimination: A Precipitator or a Consequence of Depressive Symptoms?," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 73(5), pages 860-869.
    3. Steven Andrew Culpepper & Herman Aguinis & Justin L. Kern & Roger Millsap, 2019. "High-Stakes Testing Case Study: A Latent Variable Approach for Assessing Measurement and Prediction Invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(1), pages 285-309, March.
    4. Ihsana Sabriani Borualogo & Ferran Casas, 2023. "Bullying Victimisation and Children’s Subjective Well-being: A Comparative Study in Seven Asian Countries," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, February.
    5. Shelley H. Liu & Yitong Chen & Jordan R. Kuiper & Emily Ho & Jessie P. Buckley & Leah Feuerstahler, 2024. "Applying Latent Variable Models to Estimate Cumulative Exposure Burden to Chemical Mixtures and Identify Latent Exposure Subgroups: A Critical Review and Future Directions," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 482-502, July.
    6. Wilson, Christopher J. & Bowden, Stephen C. & Byrne, Linda K. & Joshua, Nicole R. & Marx, Wolfgang & Weiss, Lawrence G., 2023. "The cross-cultural generalizability of cognitive ability measures: A systematic literature review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    7. Janina Isabel Steinert & Lucie Dale Cluver & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 51-72, February.
    8. Paul MUKUCHA & Divaries Cosmas JARAVAZA & Forbes MAKUDZA, 2022. "Towards Gender-Based Market Segmentation: The Differential Influence of Gender on Dining Experiences in the University Cafeteria Industry," Management and Economics Review, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 7(2), pages 182-200, June.
    9. Ankica Kosic & Tamara Džamonja Ignjatović & Nebojša Petrović, 2021. "A Cross-Cultural Study of Distress during COVID-19 Pandemic: Some Protective and Risk Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Amber Mosewich & Valerie Hadd & Peter Crocker & Bruno Zumbo, 2013. "Invariance Testing of the SF-36 Health Survey in Women Breast Cancer Survivors: Do Personal and Cancer-related Variables Influence the Meaning of Quality of Life Items?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 559-577, January.
    11. Allyson S. Graf & Meagan A. Ramsey & Julie Hicks Patrick & Amy L. Gentzler, 2016. "Dark Storm Clouds and Rays of Sunshine: Profiles of Negative and Positive Rumination About Daily Hassles and Uplifts," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 2257-2276, December.
    12. Erich Studerus & Alex Gamma & Franz X Vollenweider, 2010. "Psychometric Evaluation of the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Hofmans, J. & Pepermans, R. & Loix, E., 2009. "Measurement invariance matters: A case made for the ORTOFIN," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 667-674, August.
    14. Dybro Liengaard, Benjamin, 2024. "Measurement invariance testing in partial least squares structural equation modeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Stéfanie André, 2014. "Does Trust Mean the Same for Migrants and Natives? Testing Measurement Models of Political Trust with Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 963-982, February.
    16. Pei-Chen Wu, 2010. "Differential Functioning of the Chinese Version of Beck Depression Inventory-II in Adolescent Gender Groups: Use of a Multiple-Group Mean and Covariance Structure Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 535-550, May.
    17. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    18. Kroh, Julia & Globocnik, Dietfried & Schultz, Carsten & Holdhof, Frederike & Salomo, Søren, 2024. "Micro-foundations of digital innovation capability – A mixed method approach to develop and validate a multi-dimensional measurement instrument," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Roberta De Vito & Ruggero Bellio & Lorenzo Trippa & Giovanni Parmigiani, 2019. "Multi‐study factor analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 337-346, March.
    20. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:898-939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.