Ameliorating culturally based extreme response tendencies to attitude items

Journal of Applied Measurement

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 267-278

  Walker, Maurice ^a,b  

^a Australian Council for Educational Research

^b Australian Council for Educational Research   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; PSYCHOMETRY;

ADOLESCENT; ATTITUDE; CULTURE; HUMANS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 34548312559     PISSN: 15297713     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Choi, Y., Mericle, A., and Harachi, T. W. (2006). Using Rasch analysis to test the cross-cultural item equivalence of the Harvard trauma questionnaire and the Hopkins symptom checklist across Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrant mothers. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7(1), 16-38.
2. Flaskerud, J. H. (1988). Is the Likert scale format culturally biased? Nursing Research, 37(3), 185-186.
3. Grisay, A. (2002). Translation and cultural appropriateness of the test and survey materials. In R. J. Adams and M. Wu (Eds.), PISA 2000 technical report (pp. 57-70). Paris: OECD Publications.
4. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., and Greenholz, J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903-918.
5. Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., and Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publications.
6. Lee, J. W., Jones, P. S., Mineyama, Y., and Zhang, X. E. (2002). Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 295-306.
7. Lie, S., and Turmo, A. (2005). Cross-country comparability of student's self-reports: Evidence from PISA 2003. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.
8. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
9. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., and Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Boston: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Centre.
10. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
11. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., and Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Boston: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Centre.
12. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publications.
13. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications
14. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
15. van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., and Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5(3), 346-360.
16. Warm, W. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-445.
17. Wu, M. L. (1997). The development and application of a fit test for use with marginal maximum likelihood estimation and generalized item response models. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
18. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., and Wilson, M. R. (1997). ConQuest: Multi-aspect test software [Computer program]. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.