Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research

The purpose of this study is to empirically address questions pertaining to the effects of data screening practices in survey research. This study addresses questions about the impact of screening techniques on data and statistical analyses. It also serves an initial attempt to estimate descriptive...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of business and psychology 2018-10, Vol.33 (5), p.559-577
Hauptverfasser: DeSimone, Justin A., Harms, P. D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 577
container_issue 5
container_start_page 559
container_title Journal of business and psychology
container_volume 33
creator DeSimone, Justin A.
Harms, P. D.
description The purpose of this study is to empirically address questions pertaining to the effects of data screening practices in survey research. This study addresses questions about the impact of screening techniques on data and statistical analyses. It also serves an initial attempt to estimate descriptive statistics and graphically display the distributions of popular screening techniques. Data were obtained from an online sample who completed demographic items and measures of character strengths (N = 307). Screening indices demonstrate minimal overlap and differ in the number of participants flagged. Existing cutoff scores for most screening techniques seem appropriate, but cutoff values for consistency-based indices may be too liberal. Screens differ in the extent to which they impact survey results. The use of screening techniques can impact inter-item correlations, inter-scale correlations, reliability estimates, and statistical results. While data screening can improve the quality and trustworthiness of data, screening techniques are not interchangeable. Researchers and practitioners should be aware of the differences between data screening techniques and apply appropriate screens for their survey characteristics and study design. Low-impact direct and unobtrusive screens such as self-report indicators, bogus items, instructed items, longstring, individual response variability, and response time are relatively simple to administer and analyze. The fact that data screening can influence the statistical results of a study demonstrates that low-quality data can distort hypothesis testing in organizational research and practice. We recommend analyzing results both before and after screens have been applied.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2095434469</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48700774</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48700774</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3302b4ac90f79abcf8c40a8f4e50a75ce21d0795f2787c5d9dd9ff56892e5d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9j81KAzEURoMoOK0-gAtBcB1785-7lNaqUOimC3chzSTSQTs1mS769s4wojtXd3POdzmE3DB4YABmVhhYjRSYoaiYpHhGKqaMoEKJt3NSgbVIBdf2kkxKaQBAMQ0VmSx2uTvdLXznr8hF8h8lXv_cKdksnzbzF7paP7_OH1c0SKE7KgTwrfQBIRn025BskOBtklGBNypEzmowqBI31gRVY11jSkpb5FHVVkzJ_Th7yO3XMZbONe0x7_uPjgMqKaTU2FNspEJuS8kxuUPeffp8cgzcUOzGYtcXu6HYDQ4fndKz-_eY_5b_k25HqSldm3-_SGt63kjxDdiKX7k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2095434469</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>DeSimone, Justin A. ; Harms, P. D.</creator><creatorcontrib>DeSimone, Justin A. ; Harms, P. D.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study is to empirically address questions pertaining to the effects of data screening practices in survey research. This study addresses questions about the impact of screening techniques on data and statistical analyses. It also serves an initial attempt to estimate descriptive statistics and graphically display the distributions of popular screening techniques. Data were obtained from an online sample who completed demographic items and measures of character strengths (N = 307). Screening indices demonstrate minimal overlap and differ in the number of participants flagged. Existing cutoff scores for most screening techniques seem appropriate, but cutoff values for consistency-based indices may be too liberal. Screens differ in the extent to which they impact survey results. The use of screening techniques can impact inter-item correlations, inter-scale correlations, reliability estimates, and statistical results. While data screening can improve the quality and trustworthiness of data, screening techniques are not interchangeable. Researchers and practitioners should be aware of the differences between data screening techniques and apply appropriate screens for their survey characteristics and study design. Low-impact direct and unobtrusive screens such as self-report indicators, bogus items, instructed items, longstring, individual response variability, and response time are relatively simple to administer and analyze. The fact that data screening can influence the statistical results of a study demonstrates that low-quality data can distort hypothesis testing in organizational research and practice. We recommend analyzing results both before and after screens have been applied.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-3268</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-353X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Business and Management ; Community and Environmental Psychology ; Data analysis ; Demographics ; Hypothesis testing ; Industrial and Organizational Psychology ; ORIGINAL PAPER ; Personality and Social Psychology ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Psychology ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>Journal of business and psychology, 2018-10, Vol.33 (5), p.559-577</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017</rights><rights>Journal of Business and Psychology is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3302b4ac90f79abcf8c40a8f4e50a75ce21d0795f2787c5d9dd9ff56892e5d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3302b4ac90f79abcf8c40a8f4e50a75ce21d0795f2787c5d9dd9ff56892e5d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48700774$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48700774$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>DeSimone, Justin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harms, P. D.</creatorcontrib><title>Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research</title><title>Journal of business and psychology</title><addtitle>J Bus Psychol</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study is to empirically address questions pertaining to the effects of data screening practices in survey research. This study addresses questions about the impact of screening techniques on data and statistical analyses. It also serves an initial attempt to estimate descriptive statistics and graphically display the distributions of popular screening techniques. Data were obtained from an online sample who completed demographic items and measures of character strengths (N = 307). Screening indices demonstrate minimal overlap and differ in the number of participants flagged. Existing cutoff scores for most screening techniques seem appropriate, but cutoff values for consistency-based indices may be too liberal. Screens differ in the extent to which they impact survey results. The use of screening techniques can impact inter-item correlations, inter-scale correlations, reliability estimates, and statistical results. While data screening can improve the quality and trustworthiness of data, screening techniques are not interchangeable. Researchers and practitioners should be aware of the differences between data screening techniques and apply appropriate screens for their survey characteristics and study design. Low-impact direct and unobtrusive screens such as self-report indicators, bogus items, instructed items, longstring, individual response variability, and response time are relatively simple to administer and analyze. The fact that data screening can influence the statistical results of a study demonstrates that low-quality data can distort hypothesis testing in organizational research and practice. We recommend analyzing results both before and after screens have been applied.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Community and Environmental Psychology</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Hypothesis testing</subject><subject>Industrial and Organizational Psychology</subject><subject>ORIGINAL PAPER</subject><subject>Personality and Social Psychology</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>0889-3268</issn><issn>1573-353X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9j81KAzEURoMoOK0-gAtBcB1785-7lNaqUOimC3chzSTSQTs1mS769s4wojtXd3POdzmE3DB4YABmVhhYjRSYoaiYpHhGKqaMoEKJt3NSgbVIBdf2kkxKaQBAMQ0VmSx2uTvdLXznr8hF8h8lXv_cKdksnzbzF7paP7_OH1c0SKE7KgTwrfQBIRn025BskOBtklGBNypEzmowqBI31gRVY11jSkpb5FHVVkzJ_Th7yO3XMZbONe0x7_uPjgMqKaTU2FNspEJuS8kxuUPeffp8cgzcUOzGYtcXu6HYDQ4fndKz-_eY_5b_k25HqSldm3-_SGt63kjxDdiKX7k</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>DeSimone, Justin A.</creator><creator>Harms, P. D.</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Dirty Data</title><author>DeSimone, Justin A. ; Harms, P. D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3302b4ac90f79abcf8c40a8f4e50a75ce21d0795f2787c5d9dd9ff56892e5d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Community and Environmental Psychology</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Hypothesis testing</topic><topic>Industrial and Organizational Psychology</topic><topic>ORIGINAL PAPER</topic><topic>Personality and Social Psychology</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DeSimone, Justin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harms, P. D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of business and psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DeSimone, Justin A.</au><au>Harms, P. D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research</atitle><jtitle>Journal of business and psychology</jtitle><stitle>J Bus Psychol</stitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>559</spage><epage>577</epage><pages>559-577</pages><issn>0889-3268</issn><eissn>1573-353X</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study is to empirically address questions pertaining to the effects of data screening practices in survey research. This study addresses questions about the impact of screening techniques on data and statistical analyses. It also serves an initial attempt to estimate descriptive statistics and graphically display the distributions of popular screening techniques. Data were obtained from an online sample who completed demographic items and measures of character strengths (N = 307). Screening indices demonstrate minimal overlap and differ in the number of participants flagged. Existing cutoff scores for most screening techniques seem appropriate, but cutoff values for consistency-based indices may be too liberal. Screens differ in the extent to which they impact survey results. The use of screening techniques can impact inter-item correlations, inter-scale correlations, reliability estimates, and statistical results. While data screening can improve the quality and trustworthiness of data, screening techniques are not interchangeable. Researchers and practitioners should be aware of the differences between data screening techniques and apply appropriate screens for their survey characteristics and study design. Low-impact direct and unobtrusive screens such as self-report indicators, bogus items, instructed items, longstring, individual response variability, and response time are relatively simple to administer and analyze. The fact that data screening can influence the statistical results of a study demonstrates that low-quality data can distort hypothesis testing in organizational research and practice. We recommend analyzing results both before and after screens have been applied.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0889-3268
ispartof Journal of business and psychology, 2018-10, Vol.33 (5), p.559-577
issn 0889-3268
1573-353X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2095434469
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete
subjects Behavioral Science and Psychology
Business and Management
Community and Environmental Psychology
Data analysis
Demographics
Hypothesis testing
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
ORIGINAL PAPER
Personality and Social Psychology
Polls & surveys
Psychology
Social Sciences
title Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T22%3A38%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dirty%20Data:%20The%20Effects%20of%20Screening%20Respondents%20Who%20Provide%20Low-Quality%20Data%20in%20Survey%20Research&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20business%20and%20psychology&rft.au=DeSimone,%20Justin%20A.&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=559&rft.epage=577&rft.pages=559-577&rft.issn=0889-3268&rft.eissn=1573-353X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48700774%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2095434469&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48700774&rfr_iscdi=true