How Careless Responding and Acquiescence Response Bias Can Influence Construct Dimensionality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects that careless responding and acquiescence response bias have on analyses conducted to assess construct dimensionality. Using job satisfaction/dissatisfaction as the focal construct, we measured and controlled for careless responding and acquiescence bias in data obtained from an online survey of employees ( N = 666) from different organizations and occupational groups. We found that the negative correlation between factors defined by job satisfaction and dissatisfaction items, respectively, was attenuated by careless responding and acquiescence bias, and was not significantly different from –1.0 when both were controlled. Moreover, the correlations between the two factors and measures of other constructs were similar when careless responding and acquiescence were controlled. These findings challenge recent research purporting to demonstrate that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are distinct constructs. Recommendations for future investigations of construct dimensionality are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it