DUGi

The agreement between ipsative and normative questionnaires using compositional data analysis techniques

http://dugi.udg.edu/item/http:@@@@hdl.handle.net@@2072@@14709

The main instrument used in psychological measurement is the self-report questionnaire. One of its majordrawbacks however is its susceptibility to response biases. A known strategy to control these biases hasbeen the use of so-called ipsative items. Ipsative items are items that require the respondent to makebetween-scale comparisons within each item. The selected option determines to which scale the weight ofthe answer is attributed. Consequently in questionnaires only consisting of ipsative items everyrespondent is allotted an equal amount, i.e. the total score, that each can distribute differently over thescales. Therefore this type of response format yields data that can be considered compositional from itsinception.Methodological oriented psychologists have heavily criticized this type of item format, since the resultingdata is also marked by the associated unfavourable statistical properties. Nevertheless, clinicians havekept using these questionnaires to their satisfaction. This investigation therefore aims to evaluate bothpositions and addresses the similarities and differences between the two data collection methods. Theultimate objective is to formulate a guideline when to use which type of item format.The comparison is based on data obtained with both an ipsative and normative version of threepsychological questionnaires, which were administered to 502 first-year students in psychology accordingto a balanced within-subjects design. Previous research only compared the direct ipsative scale scoreswith the derived ipsative scale scores. The use of compositional data analysis techniques also enables oneto compare derived normative score ratios with direct normative score ratios. The addition of the secondcomparison not only offers the advantage of a better-balanced research strategy. In principle it also allowsfor parametric testing in the evaluation

Geologische Vereinigung; Universitat de Barcelona, Equip de Recerca Arqueomètrica; Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya; International Association for Mathematical Geology; Patronat de l’Escola Politècnica Superior de la Universitat de Girona; Fundació privada: Girona, Universitat i Futur.

Universitat de Girona. Departament d’Informàtica i Matemàtica Aplicada