Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Itemkonstruktion und Antwortverhalten

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion

Zusammenfassung

Die Itemgenerierung verfolgt das Ziel, repräsentative, inhaltsvalide Operationalisierungen des interessierenden Merkmals zu finden und diese in entsprechenden Aufgaben/Items abzubilden. Dazu wird auf typische Vorgehensweisen eingegangen sowie auf wichtige Aspekte, die bei der Formulierung der Items beachtet werden müssen, vor allem auf die sprachliche Verständlichkeit, die Eindeutigkeit des Iteminhalts und die Vermeidung bestimmter Iteminhalte. Basierend auf der Erörterung von typischen kognitiven und motivationalen Prozessen bei der Itembeantwortung werden verschiedene potentielle Störvariablen im Antwortverhalten (Response-Bias, Antwortstil, Antworttendenz, Soziale Erwünschtheit, Akquieszenz, Tendenz zur Mitte und Effekte der Itemreihenfolge) näher erläutert. Diese Störvariablen sollen bereits bei der Itemgenerierung mitberücksichtigt werden, da sie das Ergebnis von Tests und Fragebogen verfälschen können; Möglichkeiten zur Verringerung ihres Einflusses werden diskutiert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Angleitner, A., John, O. P. & Löhr, F.-J. (1986). It’s what you ask and how you ask it: An itemmetric analysis of personality questionnaires. In A. Angleitner & J. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires. Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 61–108). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H. & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y. S. & Tellegen, A. (2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H. & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, A. & Keniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 151–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Critcher, C. R. & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach L. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debeer, D. & Janssen, R. (2013). Modeling item-position effects within an IRT framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 164–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N. & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5. Aufl.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. & Schmidt, K. (2014). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifermann, R. R. (1961). Negation: A linguistic variable. Acta Psychologica, 18, 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R. & Selg, H. (2010). Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI-R) (8. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenberg, J. & Selg, H. (1968). Das Persönlichkeitsinventar ALNEV (Unveröffentlichter Arbeitsbericht). Freiburg/Br.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P. & Conrad, F. G. (2008). Eye-tracking data: New insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey responding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 892–913.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, E., Chuanheng, Ch., Dmitrieva, J. & Farruggia, S. P. (2003). Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: do they matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1241–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, F. P. & Priester, H. J. (1963). Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenz-Test für Kinder. HAWIK (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., McKinley, J. C. & Engel, R. (Hrsg.) (2000). MMPI-2. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R. & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höfling, V., Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Heidenreich, T. (2011). Mindfulness or Mindlessness? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 1, 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C. & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone vs. face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Moore, D. & Tourangeau, R. (2007). Response order effects in dichotomous categorical questions presented orally: The impact of questions and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, A. O. (1984). Intelligenzstrukturforschung: Konkurrierende Modelle, neue Entwicklungen, Perspektiven. Psychologische Rundschau, 35, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, R. S. & Petermann, F. (Hrsg.) (1999). Psychologische Diagnostik. Ein Lehrbuch (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D. & Matschinger, H. (1993). Richtungseffekte bei Itemformulierungen. Arbeitspapier. Mannheim: ZUMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, F., Presser, S. & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. & Fabrigar, L. R. (1998). Designing Good Questionnaires: Insights from Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., Lavrakas, P. J. & Kim, N. (2014). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A., Brocke, B. & Amthauer, R. (2007). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R (2. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (2010) NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R): professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1991). Psychology and the methodology of response styles. In R. E. Snow & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J. Cronbach (pp. 200–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality & Quantity, 42, 779–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H., Jonkisz, E. & Fucks, S. (2006). Studierendenauswahl durch die Hochschulen – Ansätze zur Prognostizierbarkeit des Studienerfolgs am Beispiel des Studiengangs Psychologie. Report Psychologie, 3, 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). PISA 2012 Ergebnisse: Was Schülerinnen und Schüler wissen und können (Band I, überarbeitete Ausgabe): Schülerleistungen in Lesekompetenz, Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Article  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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porst, R. (2008). Fragebogen. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, W. Schweizer, K. & Moosbrugger, H. (2007). Method effects due to social desirability as a parsimonious explanation of the deviation from unidimensionality in LOT-R scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1597–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiß, S. & Moosbrugger, H. (2008) Online Self Assessment Psychologie. Institut für Psychologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. Verfügbar unter https://www.psychologie.uni-frankfurt.de/49829947/20_self-Assessment [20.12.2019]

  • Rijmen, F. (2010). Formal relations and an empirical comparison among the bi-factor, the testlet, and a second-order multidimensional IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of the need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H. & Verhallen, T. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T. & Wang, X. (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1961). Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 133–142.

    Article  PubMed  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. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weirich, S., Hecht, M. & Böhme, K. (2014). Modeling item position effects using generalized linear mixed models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 535–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E. & Ware, Jr., J. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Helfried Moosbrugger

  2. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, CH-8050, Zürich, Schweiz

    Prof. Dr. Holger Brandt

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Helfried Moosbrugger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Holger Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helfried Moosbrugger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany

    Helfried Moosbrugger

  2. Methodenzentrum, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Augustin Kelava

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moosbrugger, H., Brandt, H. (2020). Itemkonstruktion und Antwortverhalten. In: Moosbrugger, H., Kelava, A. (eds) Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-61531-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-61532-4

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation