Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schriesheim, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Effect of Grouping or Randomizing Items on Leniency Response Bias

Chester A. Schriesheim

University of Southern California

This study was concerned with the effects of item presentation mode on the degree of leniency bias inherent in responses to standard field research questionnaires. Two types of modes were examined : the first with items measuring the same dimensions grouped together and the second with items measuring the same dimensions distributed randomly throughout the questionnaire. Sixty respondents completed questionnaires containing items from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963) and the Michigan Four Factor Leadership Questionnaire (Taylor and Bowers, 1972); there were thirty respondents in each of the modes (grouped and random). The random relative to the grouped mode showed substantially less leniency response bias, as assessed by both correlational and factor-analytic procedures. However, the magnitude of these effects was still considerable for the random mode. There were no notable differences in leniency effects between the two questionnaires, but some differences were obtained for specific leadership dimensions. Based upon these and the total set of findings, implications for questionnaire validity and for future research are discussed.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 41, No. 2, 401-411 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/001316448104100219
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
R. D. Brown and N. M. A. Hauenstein
Interrater Agreement Reconsidered: An Alternative to the rwg Indices
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2005; 8(2): 165 - 184.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. A. Schriesheim, R. E. Kopelman, and E. Solomon
The Effect of Grouped versus Randomized Questionnaire Format on Scale Reliability and Validity: A Three-Study Investigation
Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1989; 49(3): 487 - 508.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. A. Schriesheim, E. Solomon, and R. E. Kopelman
Grouped Versus Randomized Format: An Investigation of Scale Convergent and Discriminant Validity Using LISREL Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1989; 13(1): 19 - 32.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
N. Schmitt and D. M. Stults
Methodology Review: Analysis of Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices
Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1986; 10(1): 1 - 22.
[Abstract]