Unbalanced 3-Group Split-Ballot Multitrait–Multimethod Design?

References

• Andrews, F. M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 409. doi:10.1086/268840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batista-Foguet, J. M., Revilla, M., Saris, W. E., Boyatzis, R., & Serlavós, R. (2014). Reassessing the effect of survey characteristics on common method bias in emotional and social intelligence competencies assessment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(4), 596–607. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.934767
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch, O. J., DeCastellarnau, A., & Revilla, M. (2018). Results of the ESS pilot round 8 split-ballot multitrait-multimethod experiments. United Kingdom, London: European Social Survey ERIC.
   Google Scholar
• Bosch, O. J., Revilla, M., DeCastellarnau, A., & Weber, W. (2018). Measurement reliability, validity, and quality of slider versus radio button scales in an online probability-based panel in Norway. Social Science Computer Review, 089443931775008. doi:10.1177/0894439317750089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corten, I. W., Saris, W. E., Coenders, G., van der Veld, W., Aalberts, C. E., & Kornelis, C. (2002). Fit of different models for multitrait-multimethod experiments. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 213–232. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCastellarnau, A., & Revilla, M. (2017). Two approaches to evaluate measurement quality in online surveys: An application using the Norwegian citizen panel. Survey Research Methods, 11(4), 415–433. doi:10.18148/srm/2017.v11i4.7226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCastellarnau, A., & Saris, W. E. (2014). A simple way to correct for measurement errors in survey research. Retrieved from http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/measurement/
   Google Scholar
• Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65(2), 241–261. doi:10.1007/BF02294377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helm, J. L., Castro-Schilo, L., Zavala-Rojas, D., DeCastellarnau, A., & Oravecz, Z. (2018). Bayesian estimation of the true score multitrait–multimethod model with a split-ballot design. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(1), 71–85. doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1378103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57(2), 239–251. doi:10.1093/biomet/57.2.239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109–133. doi:10.1007/BF02291393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Uppsala, Sweden: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Költringer, R. (1995). Measurement quality in Austrian personal interview surveys. In W. E. Saris & Á. Münnich (Eds.), The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instrument (pp. 207–225). Hungary, Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition (pp. 1–950). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén..
   Google Scholar
• Revilla, M., & Saris, W. E. (2015). Estimating and comparing the quality of different scales of an online survey using an MTMM approach. In U. Engel (Ed.), Survey measurements: Techniques, data quality and sources of error (pp. 53–74). Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Revilla, M., Zavala-Rojas, D., & Saris, W. E. (2016). Creating a good question: How to use cumulative experience. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, & F. Yang-Chih (Eds.), The SAGE-handbook of survey methodology (pp. 36–254). United Kingdom, London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Revilla, M., & Saris, W. E. (2013). The split-ballot multitrait-multimethod approach: Implementation and problems. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.742379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revilla, M., Saris, W. E., Loewe, G., & Ochoa, C. (2015). Can a non-probabilistic online panel achieve question quality similar to that of the European Social Survey? International Journal of Market Research, 57(3), 395–412. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree–disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73–97. doi:10.1177/0049124113509605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers, W. L., Andrews, F. M., & Herzog, A. R. (1992). Quality of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Official Statistics, 8(3), 251–275.
   Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Andrews, F. M. (1991). Evaluation of measurement instruments using a structural modeling approach. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 575–598). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Aalberts, C. (2003). Different explanations for correlated disturbance terms in MTMM studies. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 193–213. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1002_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2014). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Revilla, M. (2016). Correction for measurement errors in survey research: Necessary and possible. Social Indicators Research, 127(3), 1005–1020. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1002-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (2018). The pooled data approach for the estimation of split-ballot multitrait–multimethod experiments. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(5), 659–672. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1431543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (forthcoming). Comparing BSEM and EUPD estimates for 2-groups SBMTMM experiments. Structural Equation Modeling.
   Google Scholar
• Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Coenders, G. (2004). A new approach to evaluating the quality of measurement instruments: The split-ballot MTMM design. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 311–347. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00155.x
   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, 16(4), 561–582. doi:10.1080/10705510903203433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherpenzeel, A. (1995). A question of quality: Evaluating survey questions by multitrait-multimethod studies. Netherlands, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Scherpenzeel, A. C. (2008). Online interviews and data quality: A multitrait-multimethod study (Draft paper to be presented at the MESS Workshop, 22-23 August 2008, Zeist.). Netherlands, Tilburg: Tilburg University.
   Google Scholar
• Scherpenzeel, A. C., & Saris, W. E. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25(3), 341–383. doi:10.1177/0049124197025003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Veld, W. M., Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (2008). Judgement rule aid for structural equation models version 3.0.4 beta.
   Google Scholar
• van Meurs, A., & Saris, W. E. (1990). Memory effects in MTMM studies. In W. E. Saris & A. van Meurs (Eds.), Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod studies (pp. 134–146). Netherlands, Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Werts, C. E., & Linn, R. L. (1970). Path analysis: Psychological examples. Psychological Bulletin, 74(3), 193–212. doi:10.1037/h0029778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wothke, W. (1996). Models for multitrait-multimethod analysis. In G. C. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling. Issues and techniques (pp. 7–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Zavala-Rojas, D. (2016). Measurement equivalence in multilingual comparative survey research. Spain, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
   Google Scholar
• Zavala-Rojas, D., Tormos, R., Weber, W., & Revilla, M. (2018). Designing response scales with multi-trait-multi-method experiments. Mathematical Population Studies, 25(2), 66–81. doi:10.1080/08898480.2018.1439241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar