Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

A misleading review of response bias

Comment on McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and Hough (2010)

Bibliographic Data

ID17983938
AuthorsMartin L Rohling (0000-0002-1054-5296), Glenn J Larrabee, Manfred F Greiffenstein (Royal Oak Community Coalition), Yossef S Ben-Porath, Yossef S Ben‐Porath (0000-0002-4597-6280, Kent State University), Paul R Lees‐Haley, Paul Lees-Haley, Paul Green (0000-0002-8179-9445), Kevin W Greve (University of New Orleans)
Year2011
Volume137
Issue4
Pages708-712
Publication date2011-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychological Bulletin (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-2909 • E-ISSN: 1939-1455
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037/a0023327
PMID21707131
OpenAlexW2032789345
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited1

In the May 2010 issue of Psychological Bulletin, R. E. McGrath, M. Mitchell, B. H. Kim, and L. Hough published an article entitled "Evidence for Response Bias as a Source of Error Variance in Applied Assessment" (pp. 450-470). They argued that response bias indicators used in a variety of settings typically have insufficient data to support such use in everyday clinical practice. Furthermore, they claimed that despite 100 years of research into the use of response bias indicators, "a sufficient justification for [their] use... in applied settings remains elusive" (p. 450). We disagree with McGrath et al.'s conclusions. In fact, we assert that the relevant and voluminous literature that has addressed the issues of response bias substantiates validity of these indicators. In addition, we believe that response bias measures should be used in clinical and research settings on a regular basis. Finally, the empirical evidence for the use of response bias measures is strongest in clinical neuropsychology. We argue that McGrath et al.'s erroneous perspective on response bias measures is a result of 3 errors in their research methodology: (a) inclusion criteria for relevant studies that are too narrow; (b) errors in interpreting results of the empirical research they did include; (c) evidence of a confirmatory bias in selectively citing the literature, as evidence of moderation appears to have been overlooked. Finally, their acknowledging experts in the field who might have highlighted these errors prior to publication may have prevented critiques during the review process

Cognitive psychology · Confirmation bias · Empirical research · Epistemology · Meta-analysis · Moderation · Perspective (graphical) · Publication bias · Response bias · Selection bias · Statistics · Computer Science · Medicine · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation · Psychological Testing and Assessment · Psychology · Social Psychology · Traumatic Brain Injury Research

  • Self‐Report Inventories

    Open Access•Yossef S Ben‐Porath•Handbook of Psychology, Second…•2012

  • Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment

    Robert E Mcgrath, Micah Mitchell et al.•Psychological Bulletin•2010

Citations per year0.07
Citation span2012 - 2012 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae