MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017594163 · doi:10.1177/152582202237730

Effects of Item Grouping and Position of the “Don't Know” Option on Questionnaire Response

2002· article· en· W2017594163 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueField Methods · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)Internal consistencyRating scaleReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)Social psychologyTheme (computing)Thematic analysisApplied psychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of questionnaire item grouping (thematic versus random) and placement of the “don't know” option (before or after the rating scale) on the frequency of nonattitude responses (checking don't know and omission) in rating attitude statements. Response consistency was also evaluated by item grouping. Findings supported the hypothesis that knowledge of an item's theme and of other items related to that theme encouraged attitude responses by reducing the frequency of don't know responses. The authors found no evidence that positioning the don't know option at the end of the rating scale reduced nonattitude responses. Furthermore, thematic grouping enhanced internal consistency reliability for four of six subscales and the total scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it