| Title |
Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric van Sonderen, Robbert Sanderman, James C. Coyne |
| Abstract |
We examined the effectiveness of reverse worded items as a means of reducing or preventing response bias. We first distinguished between several types of response bias that are often confused in literature. We next developed arguments why reversing items is probably never a good way to address response bias. We proposed testing whether reverse wording affects response bias with item-level data from the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), an instrument that contains reversed worded items. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 16% |
| Japan | 4 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 6% |
| Philippines | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 71% |
| Scientists | 6 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 407 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 81 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 57 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 11% |
| Researcher | 45 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 88 | 21% |
| Unknown | 77 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 123 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 64 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 42 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 60 | 14% |
| Unknown | 97 | 23% |