1 / 9

Assignment 1

Assignment 1. Modified data (with missing values). Unusual observations. Missing value code (-99) not recoded [4 cases] Out-of-range data values (0, 6) [4 cases] Inconsistent ratings (e.g., all 1’s (5’s) for LS, but all 5’s (1’s) for PA) [6 cases] Unusual data patterns:

owen
Download Presentation

Assignment 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assignment 1

  2. Modified data (with missing values)

  3. Unusual observations • Missing value code (-99) not recoded [4 cases] • Out-of-range data values (0, 6) [4 cases] • Inconsistent ratings (e.g., all 1’s (5’s) for LS, but all 5’s (1’s) for PA) [6 cases] • Unusual data patterns: • Alternating 1’s and 5’s or 5’s and 1’s [6 cases] • Sequential numbers (1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5 etc.) [4 cases] • All 1’s or all 5’s [6 cases]

  4. Complete data

  5. Cleaned data (with missing values)

  6. Identifying careless responses in surveys (Meade and Craig 2012) • Special items or scales used to identify careless responders (e.g., bogus items, instructed response items, self-report measures of response quality); • Post hoc methods (consistency or inconsistency indices, outlier indices, response time measures, etc.)

  7. Responses to bogus items(Meade and Craig, 2012)

  8. Examples of IMC’s • Between 14% and 46% of respondents failed this test in Oppenheimer et al. (2009)

  9. Examples of IMC’s • About 7% ofrespondents (out of over 1000) failed this test (see Oppenheimer et al. 2009)

More Related