IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/p93df.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does the Delivery Matter? Examining Randomization at the Item Level

Author

Listed:
  • Buchanan, Erin Michelle

    (Harrisburg University of Science and Technology)

  • Foreman, Riley E.
  • Huber, Becca Nicole

    (Idaho State University)

  • Pavlacic, Jeffrey Michael
  • Swadley, Rachel N.
  • Schulenberg, Stefan E.

Abstract

Scales that are psychometrically sound, meaning those that meet established standards regarding reliability and validity when measuring one or more constructs of interest, are customarily evaluated based on a set modality (i.e., computer or paper) and administration (fixed-item order). Deviating from an established administration profile could result in non-equivalent response patterns, indicating the possible evaluation of a dissimilar construct. Randomizing item administration may alter or eliminate these effects. Therefore, we examined the differences in scale relationships for randomized and nonrandomized computer delivery for two scales measuring meaning/purpose in life. These scales have questions about suicidality, depression, and life goals that may cause item reactivity (i.e. a changed response to a second item based on the answer to the first item). Results indicated that item randomization does not alter scale psychometrics for meaning in life scales, which implies that results are comparable even if researchers implement different delivery modalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Foreman, Riley E. & Huber, Becca Nicole & Pavlacic, Jeffrey Michael & Swadley, Rachel N. & Schulenberg, Stefan E., 2017. "Does the Delivery Matter? Examining Randomization at the Item Level," OSF Preprints p93df, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:p93df
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/p93df
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/59fa42f9b83f69026ae4c19f/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/p93df?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. Stefan Schulenberg & Amanda Melton, 2010. "A Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Evaluation of the Purpose in Life Test: Preliminary Psychometric Support for a Replicable Two-Factor Model," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 95-111, March.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. Stefan Schulenberg & Lindsay Schnetzer & Erin Buchanan, 2011. "The Purpose in Life Test-Short Form: Development and Psychometric Support," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 861-876, October.
    4. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E M & Baumgartner, Hans, 1998. "Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 78-90, June.
    5. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Carlos Miguel Lemos & Ross Joseph Gore & Ivan Puga-Gonzalez & F LeRon Shults, 2019. "Dimensionality and factorial invariance of religiosity among Christians and the religiously unaffiliated: A cross-cultural analysis based on the International Social Survey Programme," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-36, May.
    2. Stefan Schulenberg & Brandy Baczwaski & Erin Buchanan, 2014. "Measuring Search for Meaning: A Factor-Analytic Evaluation of the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test (SONG)," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 693-715, June.
    3. Zuzanna Siwek & Anna Oleszkowicz & Aleksandra Słowińska, 2017. "Values Realized in Personal Strivings and Motivation, and Meaning in Life in Polish University Students," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 549-573, April.
    4. Veljko Jovanović, 2019. "Evaluation of Domain Satisfaction Measure in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Austria and Four Countries of the Former Yugoslavia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 1369-1385, February.
    5. Kadic-Maglajlic, Selma & Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, Maja & Micevski, Milena & Dlacic, Jasmina & Zabkar, Vesna, 2019. "Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 644-654.
    6. Jitske Tiemensma & Sarah Depaoli & Sonja D Winter & John M Felt & Holly M Rus & Amber C Arroyo, 2018. "The performance of the IES-R for Latinos and non-Latinos: Assessing measurement invariance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    9. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    10. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    12. Tsukasa Kato, 2021. "Measurement Invariance in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale among English-Speaking Whites and Asians," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-10, May.
    13. Knoppen, Desirée & Sáenz, María Jesús, 2017. "Interorganizational teams in low-versus high-dependence contexts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 15-25.
    14. Anselmsson, Johan & Burt, Steve & Tunca, Burak, 2017. "An integrated retailer image and brand equity framework: Re-examining, extending, and restructuring retailer brand equity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 194-203.
    15. M. Sirgy, 2011. "Theoretical Perspectives Guiding QOL Indicator Projects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 1-22, August.
    16. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    17. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    18. 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.
    19. Yeung, Matthew C.H. & Ramasamy, Bala & Chen, Junsong & Paliwoda, Stan, 2013. "Customer satisfaction and consumer expenditure in selected European countries," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 406-416.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:osfxxx:p93df. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.