Akcije

Psihologija
kako citirati ovaj članak
podeli ovaj članak

Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: [1]
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:12
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:9

Sadržaj

članak: 2 od 6  
Back povratak na rezultate
2016, vol. 49, br. 3, str. 263-276
Psychometric evaluation and short form development of the balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR-6)
(naslov ne postoji na srpskom)
aUniverzitet za poslovni inženjering i menadžment, Filozofski fakultet, Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, BiH + CEON/CEES, Belgrade
bUniverzitet u Banjoj Luci, Filozofski fakultet, Studijski program psihologije, Republika Srpska, BiH

e-adresasinisasub@gmail.com
Ključne reči: Socially Desirable Responding (SDR); The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-6); Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT); Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA); HEXACO Model of Personality
Sažetak
(ne postoji na srpskom)
The goals of this research were to evaluate the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS) translation of the BIDR-6 scale, develop its short form, and to present its initial convergent/discriminative validation. The sample included 827 participants. MIRT CFA analysis revealed that four- factor model (containing 32/40 items) fits the data best, with Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) and Impression Management (IM) both splitting into the denial (SD-D and IM-D) and enhancement (SD-E and IM-E) factors. Fit and item properties were generally mediocre. SD-D and IM-E subscales were the strongest sources of misfit, thus SD-E and IM-D subscales were retained in the short form, which had good fit and replicated almost all main patterns of associations with other variables of interest (e.g., HEXACO personality traits) typically reported for the full SDE and IM scales in other research. Thus, 17-item BIDR-6 short form, containing only SD-E and IM-D subscales, is recommended for use in the BCS speaking area.
Reference
Asgeirsdottir, R.L., Vésteinsdóttir, V., Thorsdottir, F. (2016) Short form development of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and cognitive interviews to scale reduction. Personality and Individual Differences, 96: 212-221
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E. (2014) The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors: A Review of Research and Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2): 139-152
Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R.E., di Blas, L., Boies, K., Boele, D.R. (2004) A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2): 356
Ashton, M., Lee, K. (2009) The HEXACO-60: A Short Measure of the Major Dimensions of Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4): 340-345
BÄCKSTRÖM, M., BJÖRKLUND, F. (2012) Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2): 152-159
Baker, F.B. (2001) The basics of item response theory. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2nd ed
Beauducel, A., Herzberg, P.Y. (2006) On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weighted Least Squares Estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2): 186-203
Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J. (1991) Measures of self-esteem. u: Robinson J.P., Shaver P.R., Wrightsman L.S. [ur.] Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, San Diego: Academic Press, str. 115-160
Bobbio, A., Manganelli, A.M. (2011) Measuring social desirability responding: A short version of Paulhus BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(2), 117-135. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/0xSsEo
Cai, L., Hansen, M. (2012) Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(2): 245-276
Cervellione, K. L., Lee, Y.-S., Bonanno, G. A. (2008) Rasch Modeling of the Self-Deception Scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3): 438-458
Chalmers, R. P. (2012) mirt : A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6): 1-29
Chen, W.-H., Thissen, D. (1997) Local Dependence Indexes for Item Pairs Using Item Response Theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3): 265-289
Cohen, J. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1): 155-159
Crowne, D.P., Marlowe, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol, 24: 349-54
Davis, C.G., Thake, J., Vilhena, N. (2010) Social desirability biases in self-reported alcohol consumption and harms. Addictive Behaviors, 35(4): 302-311
de Vries, R. E., Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E. (2013) Rethinking Trait Conceptions of Social Desirability Scales: Impression Management as an Expression of Honesty-Humility. Assessment, 21(3): 286-299
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G. (1964) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press
Haghighat, R. (2007) The development of the brief social desirability scale (BSDS). Europe Journal of Psychology, 3(4); http://goo.gl/4bG6jV
Haghighat, R. (2007) Brief social desirability scale. version 2 scoring manual, Unpublished manuscript
Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., Gebauer, J. E. (2015) The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16). SAGE Open, 5(4)
Holden, R.R., Passey, J. (2010) Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5): 446-450
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M. (2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1); 53-60; http://goo.gl/NfO8SD
Kenny, D.A., McCoach, D. B. (2003) Effect of the Number of Variables on Measures of Fit in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3): 333-351
Kroner, D.G., Weekes, J.R. (1996) Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3): 323-333
Lee, K., Ashton, M.C. (2004) Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2): 329-358
Li, A., Bagger, J. (2006) Using the BIDR to Distinguish the Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Criterion Validity of Personality Measures: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2): 131-141
Li, F., Li, Y. (2008) The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a factor analysis. Psychological reports, 103(3): 727-31
LimeSurvey Project Team, Schmitz, C. (2012) LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. Hamburg, Germany, [Computer Software]. LimeSurvey Project, Retreived from https://www.limesurvey.org
McDonald, R.P. (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Nederhof, A.J. (1985) Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3): 263-280
Paulhus, D.L. (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J Pers Soc Psychol, vol. 46, br. 3, str. 598-609
Paulhus, D.L. (1994) Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Reference manual for BIDR version 6. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia, Unpublished manuscript
Paulhus, D.L. (2008) BIDR version 6: Form 40A. Unpublished manuscript
Paulhus, D.L., Reid, D.B. (1991) Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. J Pers Soc Psychol, vol. 60, br. 2, str. 307-317
Paulhus, D.L., Trapnell, P.D. (2009) Self-presentation of personality: An agency-communion framework. u: John O.P., Robins R.W., Pervin L.A. [ur.] Handbook of personality psychology, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 493-517
Paulhus, D.L., Vazire, S. (2007) The self-report method. u: Robins R.W., Fraley R.C., Krueger R. [ur.] Handbook of research methods in personality psychology, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 224-239
Paunonen, S.V., LeBel, E.P. (2012) Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1): 158-175
Rosseel, Y. (2012) lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2): 1-36
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., Dillon, W.R. (2005) A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7): 935-943
Stöber, J., Dette, D.E., Musch, J. (2002) Comparing Continuous and Dichotomous Scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2): 370-389
Subotić, S. (2013) Pregled metoda za utvrđivanje broja faktora i komponenti (u EFA i PCA). Primenjena psihologija, vol. 6, br. 3, str. 203-229
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, T.S. (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education
Uziel, L. (2010) Rethinking Social Desirability Scales: From Impression Management to Interpersonally Oriented Self-Control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3): 243-262
van de Mortel, T.F. (2008) Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4); 40-48; http://goo.gl/CGukFt
Yen, W. M. (1984) Effects of Local Item Dependence on the Fit and Equating Performance of the Three-Parameter Logistic Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2): 125-145
 

O članku

jezik rada: engleski
vrsta rada: originalan članak
DOI: 10.2298/PSI1603263S
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 29.09.2016.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0