RT Article
T1 Identifying Invalid Responders in a Campus Climate Survey: Types, Impact on Data, and Best Indicators
JF Journal of interpersonal violence
VO 37
IS 1/2
A1 Li, Caihong R.
A2 Follingstad, Diane
A2 Campe, Margaret I.
A2 Chahal, Jaspreet K.
LA English
YR 2022
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1783530693
AB Self-report surveys that are online, lengthy, and contain sensitive material greatly increase the probability of invalid responding (IR) on the instrument. Most research to inform our identification of invalid responders have not been able to test their methodologies where all these conditions are present. This study systematically adopted 10 IR indicators based on direct, archival, and statistic strategies to identify IR providing answers on a lengthy survey collecting campus climate/violence information that college students (N = 6,995) accessed online. Exploratory factor analysis indicated two internal factors (i.e., careless and extreme responding) underlying these IR indicators. Latent class analysis identified 4.8% of the sample as being invalid responders. Compared with honest responders, invalid responders were significantly more likely to report forms of victimization and a greater negative impact from physical abuse or sexual assault. Of importance, mean scores on victimization scales were significantly higher for invalid responders, illustrating the potential for IR data to skew prevalence rates. IR indicators differentially identified honest and invalid responders. The findings of this study contribute to the systematic investigation of IR with college students completing online and lengthy surveys that address sensitive material.
K1 statistical strategies for invalid responding
K1 college surveys
K1 survey measurement
K1 invalid responding
DO 10.1177/0886260520918588