기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
장바구니
 고객센터
본문검색
  • 검색 히스토리
실시간 인기검색어
서지반출
심리측정에서 비극단 응답양식의 효과 : 다집단 잠재계층 요인분석의 적용
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 심리측정에서 비극단 응답양식의 효과 : 다집단 잠재계층 요인분석의 적용
  • Effects of Mild Response Style on Psychological Measurement: Application of a Multi-group Latent-Class Factor Analysis
ㆍ 저자명
손원숙
ㆍ 간행물명
교육학연구KCI
ㆍ 권/호정보
2016년|54권 1호(통권169호)|pp.105-125 (21 pages)
ㆍ 발행정보
한국교육학회|한국
ㆍ 파일정보
정기간행물|KOR|
PDF텍스트(0.47MB)
ㆍ 주제분야
교육학
서지반출

국문초록

본 연구에서는 다집단 잠재계층 요인분석(Multi-group Latent-Class Factor Analysis : MLCFA)(Vermunt & Magidson, 2005)을 통하여 심리측정 도구에서 발생하는 응답편파 경향을 탐색하 고, 응답편파가 집단 간 측정동등성에 미치는 효과를 경험적으로 확인하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 서 울교육정보원에서 주관하는 2012년 서울교육종단연구 자료(SELS 2012)의 학생 설문지 중 자아개념 척도 5개 문항을 사용하였고, 학교급(초, 중, 고) 및 성별(남, 여)에 따른 집단 간 응답편파의 차이 및 측정동등성을 검증하였다. 연구 결과, 자아개념 측정에서는 극단응답 범주보다는 ‘보통이다(3점)’를 포 함해 비극단 응답 범주를 선호하는 응답편파 유형인 ‘비극단 응답양식(Mild Response Style : MLRS)’ 이 탐색되었다. 대체로 여학생 또는 중학생이 높은 MLRS 경향을 보였고, 반대로 남학생 또는 초등학 생은 극단반응을 선호하는 경향이 나타났다. 또한 MLRS의 요인의 통제는 후속되는 하위 집단 간 측 정동등성 모형의 적합도를 향상시키고, 하위집단 간 요인계수 및 문항절편의 차이를 감소시킴으로써 MLRS는 자아개념의 측정 비동등성에 어느 정도 기여하는 것으로 파악되었다. 마지막으로 본 연구는 심리척도의 하위집단 간 측정동등성 평가뿐 아니라, 측정 비동등성을 유발하는 응답편파를 동시에 탐 색할 수 있는 방안으로 MLCFA의 유용성을 제안하였고, 다문화 집단, 교육수준 및 학습기회의 차이 등과 같은 다양한 하위집단을 대상으로 한 후속 연구의 필요성을 논의하였다.

영문초록

The present research used a multi-group latent class factor analysis(MLCFA) to measure response style and measurement equivalence across gender and school-level(age) groups. In addition, this study focused on the extent to which response style leads to measurement inequivalence when comparing a psychological construct across subgroups. Analyses were based on five items measuring self-concept for a sample of 13,232 participants selected from the database of Seoul Education Longitudinal Survey(SELS) 2012. Results indicated that the two factor model with both self-concept and response style factors showed better model-data fit and mild response style(MLRS) which is the complement of ERS was identified in answering likert-type items on self-concept. Females or middle school students(7th graders) tended to avoid extreme responding more than males or primary school students did that supported the results of previous research based on Korean data. Also the impact of controlling for MLRS on measurement equivalence across gender and school-level groups was not statistically significant but controlling for it yielded more equivalent measurements. This finding emphasizes the importance of correcting for response style in large-scale assessment research and the usefulness of multi-group LCFA in both analyzing measurement equivalence and response style.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 이론적 배경
Ⅲ. 연구 방법
Ⅳ. 연구 결과
Ⅴ. 논의
참고문헌

키워드

응답편파다집단 잠재계층요인분석비극단 응답양식서울교육종단연구심리측정response stylemulti-group latent class factor analysismild response style(MLRS)SELS 2012psychological measurement

참고문헌 (41건)

  • 김석호, 신인철, 정재기 (2011). 응답자의 성격특성과 응답스타일. 조사연구, 12(2), 51-76. (Translated in English) Kim, S., Shin, I., & Jeong, J. (2011). Personality traits and response styles, Survey Research, 12(2), 51-76.
  • 손원숙(2015). 확인적 잠재계층 요인분석을 활용한 응답편파모형 탐색. 교육평가연구, 28(1), 97-115. (Translated in English) Sohn, W. (2015). Exploring response bias model : Application of a confirmatory latent-class factor analysis. Korean Journal of Educational Evaluation, 28(1), 97-115.
  • 손은영, 차정은, 김아영 (2007). 사회적 바람직성 상, 하위 집단 간 성격검사의 구인동등성 검증. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(2), 71-87. (Translated in English) Son, E., Cha, J., & Kim, A. (2007). Test of construct equivalence of personality inventory in low and high socially desirable responding groups. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 21(2), 71-87.
  • 신학경, 손원숙(2014). 혼합라쉬모형을 적용한 TIMSS 2011 수학흥미 척도의 응답양식 탐색. 교육평가연구, 27(2), 255-274. (Translated in English) Shin, H., & Sohn W. (2014). Appling a mixed Rasch model to investigate response styles in TIMSS 2011 math enjoyment scale. Korean Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(2), 255-274.
  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317-332.
  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Egan, V. (2006). Individual differences in Response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of Responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1235-1245.
  • Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 491-509.
  • Baumgartner, H. & Steenkamp, J. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143-156.
  • Billiet, J. B., & Davidov, E. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods and Research, 36(4), 542–562.
  • Bolt, D. M., Lu, Y., & Kim, J. (2014). Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychological Methods, 19(4), 528-541.
  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and Acquiescence Response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 187-212.
  • Cunningham, W. R. (1991). Issues in factorial invariance. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds), Best methods for the analysis of change (pp. 106-113). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 134-145.
  • Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis A Primer. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 195-210.
  • Eid, M., & Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(1), 20-30.
  • Gnambs, T., & Hanfstingl, B. (2013). A differential item functioning analysis of the German academic self-regulation questionnaire for adolescents, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 251-260.
  • Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting Bias components in some Response styles. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 176-188.
  • Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). The instability of Response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 253-260.
  • Kankaras, M., & Moors, G. (2011). Measurement equivalence and extreme response bias in the comparison of attitude across europe. Methodology, 7(2), 68-80.
  • Kankaras, M., Vermunt, J. K., & Moors, G. (2011). Measurement equivalence of ordinal items: A comparison of factor analytic, item response theory, and latent class approaches. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 279–310.
  • Kieruj, N. D., & Moors, G. (2013). Response style behavior: question format dependent or personal style?. Quality & Quantity, 47(1), 193-211.
  • Labouvie, E., & Ruetsch, C. (1995). Testing for equivalence of measurement scales: Simple structure and metric invariance reconsidered. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 63-76.
  • Lee, C., & Green, R. T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 289-305.
  • Lin, T. H. (2006). A comparison of model selection indices for nested latent class models. Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, 12, 239-259.
  • Meredith, W. M. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
  • Moors, G. (2003). Diagnosing response style behavior by means of a latent-class factor approach. Socio-demographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination reexamined. Quality & Quantity, 37(3), 277-302.
  • Moors, G. (2012). The effect of response style bias on the measurement of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 271-298.
  • Morren, M., Gelissen, J. & Vermunt, J. K. (2011). Dealing with extreme response style in cross-cultural research: A restricted latent class factor analysis approach. Sociological Methodology, 41, 1-13.
  • Morren, M., Gelissen, J. & Vermunt, J. K. (2012). The impact of controlling for extreme responding on measurement equivalence in cross-cultural research. Methodology, 8(4), 159-170.
  • Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259-282.
  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
  • Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in a equivalent manner? Journal of Management, 20, 643-671.
  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annuals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
  • Vaerenbergh, Y. V., & Thomas, T. D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195-217.
  • van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 263-279.
  • Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Factor analysis with categorical indicators: A comparison between traditional and latent class approaches. In A. Van der Ark, M. A. Croon & K. Sijtsma (Eds.), New development in categorical data analysis for the social and behavioral sciences(pp. 41-62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2013). LG-Syntax User's Guide: Manual for Latent GOLD 5.0 Syntax Module. Belmont, M.A.: Statistical Innovations Inc.
  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236-247.
  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 105-121.
  • Wetzel, E., Bohnke, J. R., Carstensen, C. H., Ziegler, M., & Ostendorf, F. (2013). Do individual response styles matter? Assessing differential item functioning for men and women in the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Individual Difference, 34(2), 69-81.
구매하기 (5,000)
장바구니