The Finnish Version of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale: Psychometric Properties and an Examination of Gender Differences

References

• Adams, R. J., Wu, M. L., & Wilson, M. (2012). The rasch rating model and the disordered threshold controversy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411432166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aghekyan, R. (2020). Validation of the SIEVEA instrument using the rasch analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alabdullatif, H., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2020). Personality traits and intention to continue using massive open online courses (ICM) in Spain: The mediating role of motivations. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(20), 1953–1967. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1805873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, M. A., Alam, K., Taylor, B., & Rafiq, S. (2020). Does digital inclusion affect quality of life? Evidence from Australian household panel data. Telematics and Informatics, 51, 101405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Attig, C., & Franke, T. (2019). I track, therefore I walk – exploring the motivational costs of wearing activity trackers in actual users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 127, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auerswald, M., & Moshagen, M. (2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 468–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, S. J. (2020). The applied implications of Age-Based stereotype threat for older adults. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., & Pieters, R. (2018). Misresponse to survey questions: A conceptual framework and empirical test of the effects of reversals, negations, and polar opposite core concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(6), 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718811848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaunoyer, E., & Guitton, M. J. (2021). Cyberthanathology: Death and beyond in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechger, T. M., & Maris, G. (2015). A statistical test for differential item pair functioning. Psychometrika, 80(2), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9408-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelhouwer, A., Beukel, A. P. V. D., van der Voort, M. C., Verwey, W. B., & Martens, M. H. (2020). Supporting drivers of partially automated cars through an adaptive digital In-Car tutor. Information, 11(4), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11040185
   Google Scholar
• Boley, B. B., Bynum Boley, B., Jordan, E., & Woosnam, K. M. (2020). Reversed polarity items in tourism scales: Best practice or dimensional pitfall? Current Issues in Tourism, 24(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1774517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, T., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (4th ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27(4), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caci, B., Scrima, F., Tabacchi, M. E., & Cardaci, M. (2019). The reciprocal influences among motivation, personality traits, and game habits for playing pokémon GO. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(14), 1303–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1519167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadaret, M. C., Hartung, P. J., Subich, L. M., & Weigold, I. K. (2017). Stereotype threat as a barrier to women entering engineering careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K.-H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1716–1735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, J. J., & Stinson, D. A. (2019). Gender (mis)measurement: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(11), e12506. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cha, E.-S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(4), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. V., Widjaja, A. E., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Need for affiliation, need for popularity, Self-Esteem, and the moderating effect of big five personality traits affecting individuals’ Self-Disclosure on facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(11), 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1067479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L.-M., & Jin, K.-Y. (2020). Development and validation of the willingness to intervene in bullying scale. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(Suppl 1), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12319
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for yen’s q3: Identification of local dependence in the rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cranmer, E. E., Han, D.-I. D., Gisbergen, M. V., & Jung, T. (2021). Esports matrix: Structuring the esports research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalal, D. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Negatively worded items negatively impact survey research. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 112–132). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on Self-Report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, R. A., & Thompson, A. E. (2021). The influence of stereotype threat and implicit theories of emotion on gender differences in emotional intelligence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 29(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826520920878
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953), 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edison, S. W., & Geissler, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104
   Google Scholar
• El-Sheikh, A. A., Abonazel, M. R., & Gamil, N. (2017). A review of software packages for structural equation modeling: A comparative study. Applied Mathematics and Physics, 5(3), 85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Epskamp, S., Maris, G. K. J., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2018). Network psychometrics. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. J. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (pp. 953–986). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Epskamp, S., Rhemtulla, M., & Borsboom, D. (2017). Generalized network psychometrics: Combining network and latent variable models. Psychometrika, 82(4), 904–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9557-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleischhauer, M., Enge, S., Brocke, B., Ullrich, J., Strobel, A., & Strobel, A. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foldnes, N., & Grønneberg, S. (2021). The sensitivity of structural equation modeling with ordinal data to underlying non-normality and observed distributional forms. Psychological Methods, 1–11. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000385
   Google Scholar
• Forero, C. G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2009). Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: A monte carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke, T., Attig, C., & Wessel, D. (2019). A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(6), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2008). Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 9(3), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxm045
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golino, H., Moulder, R. G., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., & Nieto, M. D. (2020). Entropy fit indices: New fit measures for assessing the structure and dimensionality of multiple latent variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(6), 874–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1779642
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golino, H., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Sadana, R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Martinez-Molina, A. (2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiff, S., & Heene, M. (2017). Why psychological assessment needs to start worrying about model fit. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemker, B. T., Andries van der Ark, L., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). On measurement properties of continuation ratio models. Psychometrika, 66(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous mokken I RT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W., & Junker, B. W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62(3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermida, R. (2015). The problem of allowing correlated errors in structural equation modeling: concerns and considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 3(1), 5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Holgado-Tello, F. P., Chacón-Moscoso, S., Barbero-García, I., & Vila-Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM (2007). Frequently asked questions. https://web.archive.org/web/20210509015346/https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/pdf/faq.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joanes, D. N., & Gill, C. A. (1998). Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (the Statistician), 47(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9884.00122
   Google Scholar
• Kammler, F., Brinker, J., Vogel, J., Hmaid, T., Thomas, O. (2019). How do we support technical tasks in the age of augmented reality? Some evidence from prototyping in mechanical engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2019 (pp. 1–17). AIS Electronic Library. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/future_of_work/future_work/1/
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, K. (2007). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 979–984. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, K., & Pornprasertmanit, S. (2016). Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & Lee, H. (2022). Falling in Love with Virtual Reality Art: A New Perspective on 3D Immersive Virtual Reality for Future Sustaining Art Consumption. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(4), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1944534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Merrill Jr, K., Xu, K., & Sellnow, D. D. (2021). I like my relational machine teacher: An AI instructor's communication styles and social presence in online education. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(18), 1760–1770. http://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1908671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L. (2018). The impact of personality on the subjective assessment of usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1336317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leys, C., Klein, O., Dominicy, Y., & Ley, C. (2018). Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the mahalanobis distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezhnina, O., & Kismihók, G. (2020). A multi-method psychometric assessment of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100004
   Google Scholar
• Li, C.-H. (2016a). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C.-H. (2016b). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C.-H. (2021). Statistical estimation of structural equation models with a mixture of continuous and categorical observed variables. Behavior Research Methods, 53(5), 2191–2213. March). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01547-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligtvoet, R. (2012). An isotonic partial credit model for ordering subjects on the basis of their sum scores. Psychometrika, 77(3), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-012-9272-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loevinger, J. (1948). The technic of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of scale analysis and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 45(6), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055827
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Lubbe, D. (2019). Parallel analysis with categorical variables: Impact of category probability proportions on dimensionality assessment accuracy. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mair, P., & Hatzinger, R. (2007a). CML based estimation of extended Rasch models with the eRm package in R. Psychology Science Quarterly, 49(1), 26–43.
   Google Scholar
• Mair, P., & Hatzinger, R. (2007b). Extended Rasch modeling: The eRm package for the application of IRT models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(9), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i09
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., & Aaby, A. (2017). Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massara, G. P., Di Matteo, T., & Aste, T. (2016). Network filtering for big data: Triangulated maximally filtered graph. Journal of Complex Networks, 5(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnw015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massof, R. W. (2004). Likert and guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 11(5), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580490888771
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masters, G. N. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masters, G. N. (2016). The partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory (pp. 109–126). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, G., Hancock, P. A., Lin, J., Panganiban, A. R., Reinerman-Jones, L. E., Szalma, J. L., & Wohleber, R. W. (2021). Evolution and revolution: Personality research for the coming world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2021). Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychological Methods, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000425
   Google Scholar
• Mecklin, C. J., & Mundfrom, D. J. (2007). An appraisal and bibliography of tests for multivariate normality. International Statistical Review, 72(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2004.tb00228.x
   Google Scholar
• Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research. Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Mokken, R. J. (1997). Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 351–367). Springer New York.
   Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I. W. (1997). Nonparametric models for polytomous responses. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 369–380). Springer New York.
   Google Scholar
• Montag, C., & Elhai, J. D. (2019). A new agenda for personality psychology in the digital age? Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, M. (2020a). iarm: Item analysis in Rasch models (R package version 0.4.2) [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=iarm
   Google Scholar
• Müller, M. (2020b). Item fit statistics for Rasch analysis: Can we trust them? Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-020-00108-7
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. R Core Team. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schartmüller, C., Wintersberger, P., Frison, A.-K., & Riener, A. (2019, June). Type-o-Steer: Reimagining the steering wheel for productive non-driving related tasks in conditionally automated vehicles [Paper presentation]. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Paris, France (pp. 1699–1706). https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2019.8814088
   Google Scholar
• Schauberger, G. (2019). Gpcmlasso: Differential item functioning in generalized partial credit models (R package version 0.1–4) [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GPCMlasso
   Google Scholar
• Schauberger, G., & Mair, P. (2020). A regularization approach for the detection of differential item functioning in generalized partial credit models. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01224-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlicker, N., Langer, M., Ötting, S. K., Baum, K., König, C. J., & Wallach, D. (2021). What to expect from opening up ‘black boxes’? Comparing perceptions of justice between human and automated agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmettow, M., & Drees, M. (2014). What drives the geeks? Linking computer enthusiasm to achievement goals. In Proceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2014) (pp. 189–194). BCS Learning & Development. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/HCI2014.37
   Google Scholar
• Schomakers, E.-M., Lidynia, C., & Ziefle, M. (2019). Listen to my heart? How privacy concerns shape users’ acceptance of e-health technologies [Paper presentation]. 2019 International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) (pp. 306–311). https://doi.org/10.1109/WiMOB.2019.8923448
   Google Scholar
• Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The effect of negation and polar opposite item reversals on questionnaire reliability and validity: An experimental investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2019). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(2), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419885164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K. (2005). Nonparametric item response theory models. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., & Hemker, B. T. (2000). A taxonomy of IRT models for ordering persons and items using simple sum scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25(4), 391–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R. R., & Andries van der Ark, L. A. (2011). Mokken scale analysis as time goes by: An update for scaling practitioners. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., & Pfadt, J. M. (2021). Part II: On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha: Discussing lower bounds and correlated errors. Psychometrika, 86(4), 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09789-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., & van der Ark, L. A. (2017). February). A tutorial on how to do a mokken scale analysis on your test and questionnaire data. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., & van der Ark, L. A. (2020). Measurement models for psychological attributes. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sindermann, C., Schmitt, H. S., Kargl, F., Herbert, C., & Montag, C. (2021). Online privacy literacy and online privacy behavior – the role of crystallized intelligence and personality. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(15), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slocum-Gori, S. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G., Antona, M., Chen, J. Y. C., Dong, J., Duffy, V. G., Fang, X., Fidopiastis, C., Fragomeni, G., Fu, L. P., Guo, Y., Harris, D., Ioannou, A., Jeong, K-a (K. )., Konomi, S., Krömker, H., Kurosu, M., Lewis, J. R., Marcus, A., … Zhou, J. (2019). Seven HCI grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(14), 1229–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1619259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2014). Minimum sample size requirements for mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(5), 809–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414529793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2016). Using conditional association to identify locally independent item sets. Methodology, 12(4), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straat, J. H., Hendrik Straat, J., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). Comparing optimization algorithms for item selection in Mokken scale analysis. Journal of Classification, 30(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-013-9122-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajudeen, F. P., Bahar, N., Maw Pin, T., & Saedon, N. I. (2021). Mobile technologies and healthy ageing: A bibliometric analysis on publication trends and knowledge structure of mhealth research for older adults. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(2), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taufik, D., Kunz, M. C., & Onwezen, M. C. (2021). Changing consumer behaviour in virtual reality: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100093
   Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A. (2005). Stochastic ordering of the latent trait by the sum score under various polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 70(2), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-000-0862-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A. (2007). Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(11), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(5), 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A., & Bergsma, W. P. (2010). A note on stochastic ordering of the latent trait using the sum of polytomous item scores. Psychometrika, 75(2), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9147-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A., Rossi, G., & Sijtsma, K. (2019). Nonparametric item response theory and mokken scale analysis, with relations to latent class models and cognitive diagnostic models. In M. von Davier & Y. -S. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of diagnostic classification models: Models and model extensions, applications, software packages (pp. 21–45). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. D. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wensing, M., Paech, B., Roth, C., & Schwill, S. (2019). Learning, understanding and the use of information technology: A survey study among primary care physician trainees. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 728. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4615-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel, D., Attig, C., & Franke, T. (2019, September). ATI-S - an Ultra-Short scale for assessing affinity for technology interaction in user studies. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019 (pp. 147–154). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3340766
   Google Scholar
• Wetzel, E., & Carstensen, C. H. (2014). Reversed thresholds in partial credit models: a reason for collapsing categories? Assessment, 21(6), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114530775
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00026-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, C. M. (2006). Careless responding to Reverse-Worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(3), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-005-9004-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the Three-Parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, K.-H., Liu, H., & Han, Y. (2021). Differential item functioning analysis without a priori information on anchor items: QQ plots and graphical test. Psychometrika, 86(2), 345–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09746-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., Noor, R., & Savalei, V. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the need for cognition scale. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157795. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157795
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zijlmans, E. A. O., Tijmstra, J., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2018). Item-Score reliability as a selection tool in test construction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwitser, R. J., & Maris, G. (2016). Ordering individuals with sum scores: The introduction of the nonparametric rasch model. Psychometrika, 81(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9481-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar