Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

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 Articles by Solomon, E.
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 Grouped versus Randomized Questionnaire Format on Scale Reliability and Validity: A Three-Study Investigation

Chester A. Schriesheim

University of Miami

Richard E. Kopelman

Baruch College, the City University of New York

Esther Solomon

Fordham University

Three studies were conducted exploring the effects of two questionnaire formats (grouping versus randomized items) on internal consistency and test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and accuracy in respondent-provided descriptions. The results of these studies (two correlational, one experimental) were reasonably consistent in showing that neither format is clearly superior to the other on any of the examined psychometric properties, although a weak trend showed that the grouped item format produced slightly superior measurement properties. Over-all, the results did not support the usefulness of grouping question-naire items. Implications and future research directions are briefly discussed.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 49, No. 3, 487-508 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/001316448904900301
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
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. R. Sparfeldt, S. R. Schilling, D. H. Rost, and A. Thiel
Blocked Versus Randomized Format of Questionnaires: A Confirmatory Multigroup Analysis
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2006; 66(6): 961 - 974.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
D. A. Harrison and M. E. McLaughlin
Structural Properties and Psychometric Qualities of Organizational Self-Reports: Field Tests of Connections Predicted by Cognitive Theory
Journal of Management, April 1, 1996; 22(2): 313 - 338.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. M. Carey, R. F. Dedrick,, J. O. Carey, and S. N. Kushner
Procedures for Designing Course Evaluation Instruments: Masked Personality Format Versus Transparent Achievement Format
Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1994; 54(1): 134 - 145.
[Abstract]