Likert, slider, or text? reassurances about response format effects

References

• Anderson CA, Allen JJ, Plante C, Quigley-McBride A, Lovett A, Rokkum JN. 2019. The MTurkification of social and personality psychology. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 45(6):842–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonar EE, Rosenberg H, Hoffmann E, Kraus SW, Kryszak E, Young KM, Ashrafioun L, Pavlick M, Bannon EE. 2011. Measuring university students’ self-efficacy to use drinking self-control strategies. Psychol Addict Behav. 25(1):155–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsari B, Carey KB. 2005. Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 19(3):296–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner PS, DeLamater J. 2016. Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Soc Psychol Q. 79(4):333–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner RL. 2005. Personality development: Stability and change. Annu Rev Psychol. 56(1):453–484.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cobb-Clark DA, Schurer S. 2012. The stability of big-five personality traits. Econ Lett. 115(1):11–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Conrad FG, Singer E. 2006. Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales: a web experiment. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 24(2):227–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham JA, Wong HTA. 2013. Assessing the immediate impact of normative drinking information using an immediate post-test randomized controlled design: implications for normative feedback interventions? Addict Behav. 38(6):2252–2256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes J. 2002. Five point vs. eleven point scales: Does it make a difference to data characteristics? Austral J Mar Res. 10:39–47.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes J. 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int J Market Res. 50(1):61–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Beuckelaer A. 1996. A closer examination on some parametric alternatives to the ANOVA F-test. Stat Pap. 37(4):291–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earleywine M, Finn PR, Martin CS. 1990. Personality risk and alcohol consumption: A latent variable analysis. Addict Behav. 15(2):183–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earleywine M, LaBrie JW, Pedersen ER. 2008. A brief Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index with less potential for bias. Addict Behav. 33(9):1249–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrhart MG, Ehrhart KH, Roesch SC, Chung-Herrera BG, Nadler K, Bradshaw K. 2009. Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Pers and Indiv Differ. 47(8):900–905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 39(2):175–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funke F, Reips UD, Thomas RK. 2011. Sliders for the smart: Type of rating scale on the web interacts with educational level. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 29(2):221–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. Jr., 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers. 37(6):504–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman L, Robinson J, Abberbock T. 2017. TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav Res. 49(2):433–442.
   Google Scholar
• Mackinnon SP, Firth S. 2018. The effect of question structure on self-reported drinking: Ascending versus descending order effects. J Res Pers. 73:21–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melson AJ, Monk RL, Heim D. 2016. Self–other differences in student drinking norms research: The role of impression management, self‐deception, and measurement methodology. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 40(12):2639–2647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monk RL, Heim D, Qureshi A, Price A. 2015. I have no clue what I drunk last night”: Using smartphone technology to compare in-vivo and retrospective self-reports of alcohol consumption. PloS One. 10(5):e0126209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 115(11):2600–2606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips AW, Artino AR. Jr., 2017. Lies, damned lies, and surveys. J Grad Med Ed. 9(6):677–679.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reilly EE, Dmochowski S, Schaumberg K, Earleywine M, Anderson D. 2016. Gender-moderated links between urgency, binge drinking, and excessive exercise. J Am Coll Health. 64(2):104–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reips UD, Funke F. 2008. Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behav Res Methods. 40(3):699–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassenberg K, Ditrich L. 2019. Research in social psychology changed between 2011 and 2016: Larger sample sizes, more self-report measures, and more online studies. Adv Meth Practices Psychol Sci. 2(2):107–114.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz N, Knäuper B, Hippler HJ, Noelle-Neumann E, Clark L. 1991. Rating scales numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Publ Opinion Quart. 55(4):570–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz N. 1999. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist. 54(2):93–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simms LJ, Zelazny K, Williams TF, Bernstein L. 2019. Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychol Assess. 31(4):557–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SM, Albaum GS. 2013. Basic marketing research: Building your survey. Provo, UT: Qualtrics Labs.
   Google Scholar
• Smith TW. 1995. Little things matter: A sampler of how differences in questionnaire format can affect survey responses. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; pp. 1046–1051.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley N, Jenkins S. 2007. Watch what I do: Using graphical input controls in web surveys. In: Trotman M, Burrell T, Gerrard L, Anderton K, Basi G, Couper M, Westlake A, editors. The challenges of a changing world (Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for Survey Computing). Berkeley, UK: Association for Survey Computing; p. 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Weijters B, Cabooter E, Schillewaert N. 2010. The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. Int J Res Mark. 27(3):236–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright DL, Aquilino WS, Supple AJ. 1998. A comparison of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires in a survey on smoking, alcohol, and drug use. Publ Opinion Quart. 62(3):331–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar