Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015

MÜNEVVER İLGÜN DİBEK (TED Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
5 0
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 87 Sayfa Aralığı: 199 - 220 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10 İndeks Tarihi: 26-11-2020

Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015

Öz:
Purpose: Cross-cultural comparisons based onordinal Likert-type rating scales have beenthreatened by response style which is systematictendencies to respond to items regardless of theitem content. So, this study aimed to investigate theeffect of extreme response style and acquisanceresponse style on TIMSS 2015 data.Method: The sample of this descriptive studyincluded eighth grade students of the countries Japan, Korea, Taipei, Turkey, Oman andJordan. Students’ responses to scale regarding value on mathematics were used. To examinethe impact of response styles, partial credit model and partial credit model with response stylewere analyzed. Also, the estimates obtained from these models were comparedFindings: It was found that response styles existed in TIMSS 2015 data. Furthermore, thenumber of the students selecting the extreme categories were found to be lower than that ofthe students selecting relatively middle response categories. Additionally, item thresholds ofthe extreme categories were found to be distorted leading to biased determination of itemresponse curves.Implications for Research and Practice: The presence of the response style in the large-scaleassessment which guides policy makers in their regulations in the educational systems andgives information to teachers in their practices lead researchers to examine and control theeffect of them.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J.& Egan, V. (2006). Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1235-1245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.018
  • Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 608-628. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5
  • Bolt, D. M., & Johnson, T. R. (2009). Addressing score bias and differential item functioning due to individual differences in response style. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33,335-352.
  • Bockenholt, U.& Meiser, T. (2017). Response style analysis with threshold and multiprocess IRT models: A review and tutorial. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70, 159-181. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12086
  • Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  • Chalmers, R. P. (2016). Generating adaptive and non-adaptive test interfaces for multidimensional item response theory Applications. Journal of Statistical Software, 71(5), 1-39. doi:10.18637/jss.v071.i05
  • Cheung, M. W.-L., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 187-212.
  • Chun, K.-T., Campbell, J. B., & Yoo, J. H. (1974). Extreme response style in crosscultural research: A Reminder. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5(4), 465– 480. doi: 10.1177/002202217400500407
  • Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis. A primer. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 34(2), 195- 210.
  • Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 35(3), 263-282.
  • Fischer, R., Fontaine, J. R. J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & van Hemert, D. A. (2009). An examination of acquiescent response styles in cross-cultural research. In G. Aikaterini & K. Mylonas (Eds.), Quod Erat Demonstrandum: From Herodotus’ ethnographic journeys to cross-cultural research. Proceedings from the 18th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/iaccp_papers/52/
  • Greenleaf, E.A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 328-351.
  • Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and application. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
  • Harzing, A.W (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. International Journal of Crosscultural Management, 6(2), 1-37.
  • Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Hough, L., & Dilchert, S. (2010). Personality: Its measurement and validity for employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 299- 319). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Hutton, A.C. (2017). Assessing acquiescence in surveys using positively and negatively worded questions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H.C. (1985). The instability of response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 253–60.
  • Ilgun Dibek, M. (2019). Examination of the extreme response style of students using IRTree: The case of TIMSS 2015. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(2), 300-313.
  • Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review Psychology, 50, 537-567.
  • LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2016). Sample Design in TIMSS 2015. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.), Methods and Procedures in TIMSS 2015 (pp. 3.1-3.37). Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timss.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015-methods/chapter-3.html
  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Personality, 140, 5- 53.
  • Lu, Y., & Bolt, D. M. (2015). Examining the attitude-achievement paradox in PISA using a multilevel multidimensional IRT model for extreme response style. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 3(2), 1-18. doi: 10.1186/s40536-015- 0012- 0
  • Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47 (2), 149–174.
  • McGrath, R., Mitchell, M., Kim, B.H., & Hough, L. (2010). Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 450-470.
  • Mooi, E., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi-Reci, I. (2018). Market research: The process, data, and methods using Stata. Singapore: Springer
  • Moors, G. (2004). Facts and artefacts in the comparison of attitudes among ethnic minorities. A multi-group latent class structure model with adjustment for response style behavior. European Sociological Review, 20(4), 303-320.
  • Moors, G. (2010). Ranking the ratings: A latent-class regression model to control for overall agreement in opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 93-119. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edp036
  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics.Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
  • Pearse, N. (2011). Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of Likert type scales: The case of a 21-Point scale. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 159-171.
  • Plieninger, H. & Heck, D.W. (2018) A new model for acquiescence at the interface of psychometrics and cognitive psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(5), 633-654, doi: 10.1080/00273171.2018.1469966
  • Prediger, D. J. (1999). Basic structure of work-relevant abilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 173-184.
  • Reynolds, N., & Smith, A. (2010). Assessing the impact of response styles on crosscultural service quality evaluation: A simplified approach to eliminating the problem. Journal of Service Research, 13, 230-243.
  • Richardson, M.D., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Psychological bulletin, 138 2, 353-87
  • Schauberger, G. (2018). PCMRS: Model response styles in partial credit models. R package version 0.1-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PCMRS
  • Si, S. X., & Cullen, J. B. (1998). Response categories and potential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6, 218-230
  • Tutz, G., G. Schauberger, and M. Berger (2018). Response styles in the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42, 407–427.
  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data-analysis for cross-cultural research (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 33-51.
  • Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from 6 EU countries. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 35(3), 346-360.
  • Wickham, H. Francois, R., Henry,L. and Muller,K. (2019). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.1. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=dplyr
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 105-121. doi: 10.1177/0146621609338593
APA Ilgun Dibek M (2020). Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. , 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
Chicago Ilgun Dibek Munevver Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. (2020): 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
MLA Ilgun Dibek Munevver Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. , 2020, ss.199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
AMA Ilgun Dibek M Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. . 2020; 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
Vancouver Ilgun Dibek M Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. . 2020; 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
IEEE Ilgun Dibek M "Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015." , ss.199 - 220, 2020. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
ISNAD Ilgun Dibek, Munevver. "Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015". (2020), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
APA Ilgun Dibek M (2020). Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(87), 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
Chicago Ilgun Dibek Munevver Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20, no.87 (2020): 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
MLA Ilgun Dibek Munevver Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol.20, no.87, 2020, ss.199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
AMA Ilgun Dibek M Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 20(87): 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
Vancouver Ilgun Dibek M Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 20(87): 199 - 220. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
IEEE Ilgun Dibek M "Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015." Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20, ss.199 - 220, 2020. 10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
ISNAD Ilgun Dibek, Munevver. "Effect of Extreme and Acquiescence Response Style in TIMSS 2015". Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20/87 (2020), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.87.10
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 15:28

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları