Abstract
AbstractMeasuring the variability in persons’ behaviors and experiences using ecological momentary assessment is time-consuming and costly. We investigate whether interval responses provided through a dual-range slider (DRS) response format can be used as a simple and efficient alternative: Respondents indicate variability in their behavior in a retrospective rating by choosing a lower and an upper bound on a continuous, bounded scale. We investigate the psychometric properties of this response format as a prerequisite for further validation. First, we assess the test–retest reliability of factor-score estimates for the width of DRS intervals. Second, we test whether factor-score estimates of the visual analog scale (VAS) and the location of DRS intervals show convergent validity. Third, we investigate whether factor-score estimates for the DRS are uncorrelated between different personality scales. We present a longitudinal multitrait-multimethod study using two personality scales (Extraversion, Conscientiousness) and two response formats (VAS, DRS) at two measurement occasions (6–8 weeks apart) for which we estimate factor-score correlations in a joint item response theory model. The test–retest reliability of the width of DRS intervals was high ($$\hat{\rho } \ge .73$$
ρ
^
≥
.
73
). Also, convergent validity between location scores of VAS and DRS was high ($$\hat{\rho } \ge .88$$
ρ
^
≥
.
88
). Conversely, discriminant validity of the width of DRS intervals between Extraversion and Conscientiousness was poor ($$\hat{\rho } \ge .94$$
ρ
^
≥
.
94
). In conclusion, the DRS seems to be a reliable response format that could be used to measure the central tendency of a trait equivalently to the VAS. However, it might not be well suited for measuring intra-individual variability in personality traits.
Funder
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Fachgruppe Methoden und Evaluation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. American Educational Research Association (Ed.). (2011). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2. Andresen, P. K., Schuurman, N. K., & Hamaker, E. (2024). How to measure and model personality traits in everyday life: A qualitative analysis of 300 big five personality items. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nqseu
3. Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Dependability of personality, life satisfaction, and affect in short-term longitudinal data. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00714.x
4. Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90(3), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.512
5. Barnard, J., McCulloch, R., & Meng, X. L. (2000). Modeling covariance matrices in terms of standard deviations and correlations, with application to shrinkage. Statistica Sinica, 10(4), 1281–1311.