↓ Skip to main content

Random Responding from Participants is a Threat to the Validity of Social Science Research Results

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

q&a
2 Q&A threads

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Random Responding from Participants is a Threat to the Validity of Social Science Research Results
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason W. Osborne, Margaret R. Blanchard

Abstract

Research in the social sciences often relies upon the motivation and goodwill of research participants (e.g., teachers, students) to do their best on low stakes assessments of the effects of interventions. Research participants who are unmotivated to perform well can engage in random responding on outcome measures, which can cause substantial mis-estimation of results, biasing results toward the null hypothesis. Data from a recent educational intervention study served as an example of this problem: participants identified as random responders showed substantially lower scores than other participants on tests during the study, and failed to show growth in scores from pre- to post-test, while those not engaging in random responding showed much higher scores and significant growth over time. Furthermore, the hypothesized differences across instructional method were masked when random responders were retained in the sample but were significant when removed. We remind researchers in the social sciences to screen their data for random responding in their outcome measures in order to improve the odds of detecting effects of their interventions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 97 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 26%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 42%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 23 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2013.
All research outputs
#5,860,813
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,343
of 29,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,244
of 180,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#102
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.