Theory and Decision

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 249–259 | Cite as

The Instruction set of Questionnaires can Affect the Structure of the Data: Application to Self-Rated State Anxiety

  • Stéphane Vautier
  • Etienne Mullet
  • Sylvie Bourdet-loubère
Article

Abstract

The present study tested the assumption that self-ratings, such as those used for measuring state anxiety, do not measure a one-dimensional transcendent entity but involve decisions based on a multi-dimensional judgment. Two groups of subjects were presented with a balanced nine-item state anxiety questionnaire. Each group received a different set of instructions (a standard set and an altered instruction set suggesting unidimensionality of the questions in the questionnaire). It was hypothesized that this change in instructions would impact the structure of the data. The impact of the instructions was detectable at the level of the observed correlation between the negative and positive composites, Cohen's (1988) q=−0.27$. A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis showed that positive and negative wording factors correlated more strongly when unidimensionality was suggested than when standard instructions were used, q=−0.54. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Decision Instructions Measurement Self-ratings SEM State anxiety 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Billiet, J.B. and McClendon, M.J. (2000), Modeling acquiescence in measurement: Models for two balanced sets of items, Structural Equation Modeling 7, 608–628.Google Scholar
  2. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J. and van Heerden, J. (2003), The theoretical status oflatent variables, Psychological Review 110, 203–219.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F.W. and Trierweiler, L. (2003), Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C (M-1) model. Psychological Methods 8, 38–60.Google Scholar
  5. Fabrigar, L.R., MacCallum, R.C., Weneger, D.T. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), Evaluating the use ofexploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4, 272–299.Google Scholar
  6. Floyd, F.J. and Widaman, K.F. (1995), Factor analysis in the development and refinement ofclinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment 7, 286–299.Google Scholar
  7. Iwata, N. and Higuchi, H.-R. (2000), Responses ofJapanese and American university students to the STAI items that assess the presence or absence ofanxiety, Journal of Personality Assessment 74, 48–62.Google Scholar
  8. Kvaal, K., Laake, K. and Engedal, K. (2001). Psychometric properties ofthe state part ofthe Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) in geriatric patients, International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 16, 980–986.Google Scholar
  9. Pilotte, W.J. and Gable, R.K. (1990), The impact ofpositive and negative item stems on the validity ofa computer anxiety scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement 50, 603–619.Google Scholar
  10. Schwarz, N. (1999), Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers, American Psychologist 54, 93–105.Google Scholar
  11. Schwarz, N. and Strack, F. (1999), Reports ofsubjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications, in: D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), Well-being. The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Spielberger, C.D., Vagg, P.R., Barker, L.R., Donham, G.W. and Westberry, L.G. (1980). The factor structure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, in C.D. Spielberger and I.G. Sarason (eds.), Stress and Anxiety, Volume 7 (pp. 95–109). Washington, DC: Hemisphere/Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P.R. and Jacobs, G.A. (1993), Manuel de l'Inventaire d'Anxiété État-Trait Forme Y (STAI-Y). Adaptépar M. Bruchon-Schweitzer et I. Paulhan. [Manual of STAI form Y. Adapted to French by M. Bruchon-Schweitzer and I. Paulhan]. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  14. Spielberger, C.D., Ritterband, L.M., Sydeman, S.J., Reheiser, E.C. and Unger, K.K. (1995), Assessment ofemotional states and personality traits: Measuring psychological vital signs, in: J. N. Butcher (ed.), Clinical Personality Assessment (pp. 42–58). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. StatSoft. (2001), STATISTICA for Windows [Computer software]. Tulsa, OK: Author.Google Scholar
  16. Steyer, R. (1989), Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability, Methodika 3, 25–60.Google Scholar
  17. Steyer, R. (2001), Classical (psychometric) test theory, in: T. Cook and C. Ragin (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Logic of Inquiry and Research Design (pp. 1955–1962). Oxford: Pergamon. Retrieved September 25, 2002, from http: //www.unijena.de/svw/metheval/ start.php?go=publikationen&auswahl=1Google Scholar
  18. Tourangeau, R. and Rasinski, A. (1988), Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement, Psychological Bulletin 103, 299–314.Google Scholar
  19. Vagg, P.R., Spielberger, C.D. and O'Hearn, T.P.J. (1980), Is the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory multidimensional? Personality and Individual Differences 1, 207–214.Google Scholar
  20. Vautier, S., Callahan, S., Moncany, D. and Sztulman, H. (in press), A bi-stable view ofsingle constructs measured using balanced questionnaires: Application to trait anxiety. Structural Equation Modeling.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Vautier
    • 1
  • Etienne Mullet
    • 2
  • Sylvie Bourdet-loubère
    • 2
  1. 1.Stéphane Vautier, CERPP, UFR de Psychologie, Université de Toulouse Le Mirail, 5 Allées A. MachadoFrance
  2. 2.CERPP, UFR de Psychologie, Université de Toulouse Le MirailCedex 9France

Personalised recommendations