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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of business and psychology 2018-10, Vol.33 (5), p.559-577 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |