引言

Bogus items contain content that is either obvious or ridiculous.

利用一些事实上明显不成立或者错误的信息，如果被试错选则有可能没有认真看题。

“I was born on February 30”

“I have exactly 354 best friends”

“I have 17 fingers on my left hand” 

“I was born on planet Earth.” (DeSimone et al., 2015)

来源：(Meade & Craig, 2012)

“I have never used a computer”; (Huang et al., 2014).

1. 我从未使用过手机

I have never used a mobile phone (Huang et al., 2014))

2. 妖精们每两周付我一次钱

I am paid biweekly by leprechauns  (Meade & Craig, 2012).

3. 我所有的朋友都说我是一个很棒的哈巴狗

All my friends say I would make a great poodle (Meade & Craig, 2012)

(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) 

correct answers to “I am paid biweekly by leprechauns” may be ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree.’ 

Incorrect answers may include ‘slightly disagree,’ ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and all of the identically mirrored ‘agree’ options.  (Curran, 2016)

不认真作答的被试可能选择：既非同意也非不同意， 中立，同意，非常同意

Warning: 该方法有风险，有时候被试觉得好玩，甚至自认为有幽默感可能故意选择同意……

顾名思义，就是指定选择某个选项。

One common and fairly transparent technique instructs respondents to answer with a particular response option, such as “Please select Moderately Inaccurate for this item” (Huang et al., 2012).

例: 此题请选C;

“Please indicate option [X] for this question” (DeSimone, Harms, & & DeSimone, 2015)

“To monitor quality, please respond with a two for this item”.

此题，请留白：“Please leave this item blank”. (DeSimone et al., 2015)

鉴于被试注意力会起伏不定，建议设置多个指定选项题目。

Researchers should be aware that respondents may fluctuate in effort throughout the survey. Consequently, it is advisable to insert multiple instructed items into a survey (DeSimone et al., 2015)

Warning: 以上两种方法对于完全不看题目和选项的被试有效，但是对于故意扭曲答案的被试不起作用。

Bogus and instructed items are useful for identifying inattentive participants, but may be less suitable for identifying respondents who intentionally distort their responses (DeSimone, Harms, & & DeSimone, 2015).

直接问被试有没有认真回答。

Self-report indices generally appear in the form of a question (or series of questions) at the end of a survey addressing attention, effort, or thoughtfulness. Although straightforward, a major limitation lies in the transparency of this technique, rendering it vulnerable to dishonesty and demand characteristics (DeSimone et al., 2015).

1. Instruction:“I verify that I have carefully and honestly answered all questions on this survey.”  (Meade & Craig, 2012)

2. “Lastly, it is vital to our study that we only include responses from people that devoted their full attention to this study. Otherwise years of effort (the researchers’ and the time of other participants) could be wasted. You will receive credit for this study no matter what, however, please tell us how much effort you put forth towards this study.”

“I put forth ____ effort towards this study” 

with response options of 1  =  “almost no,” 2  =  “very little,” 3  =  “some,” 4  =  “quite a bit,” and 5  =  “a lot of.” (Meade & Craig, 2012)

3. “Also, often there are several distractions present during studies (other people, TV, music, etc.). Please indicate how much attention you paid to this study. Again, you will receive credit no matter what. We appreciate your hon- esty!” SRSI Attention was then assessed as the response to the item

“I gave this study ____ attention” 

with options 1  =  “almost no,” 2  =  “very little of my,” 3  =  “some of my,” 4  =  “most of my,” and 5  =  “my full.” (Meade & Craig, 2012)

4.  “In your honest opinion, should we use your data in our analyses in this study?” 

 1  =  “yes” or 0  =  “no” response. (Meade & Craig, 2012)

5. “I occasionally answered items without reading them.” (DeSimone et al., 2015).

6. “I carefully considered each item before responding”; Berry et al., 1992; Costa & McCrae, 1997),

这也是基于被试“诚实”假定下才有效 ……

Using response time as a screening technique relies on the assumption that there is a minimum amount of time that respondents must spend on an item in order to answer accurately. Although variations in reading speed and item length make cutoff scores difficult to justify, it is “unlikely for participants to respond to survey items faster than the rate of 2 s per item” (Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki & DeShon, 2012, p. 106).

The response time screen was computed using the average number of seconds required to complete each item. For example, a score of 1.0 indicates that the participant required 1 s/item while a score of 2.5 indicates that the participant required 2.5 s/item (DeSimone et al., 2015).

Kurtz and Parish (2001). Examining self-report and response time measures indicated that their use to screen the data is better than doing nothing.

统计实现：现在网络作答都会有response time, 但是这种只有在没有设定强制作答时间才有效。分析时利用SPSS, Mplus等软件只需描述性统计，查看Minimum 作答时间，筛选出每道题小于2s的被试。

简而言之，就是个人作答题号奇数偶数题的一致性，其做法是将单维度问卷分成两半，然后计算相关系数。

An additional index recommended by Jackson (1976, as cited in Johnson, 2005) was examined which we termed the Even-Odd Consistency measure. With this approach, unidimensional scales are divided using an even-odd split based on the order of appearance of the items. An even subscale and also an odd subscale score is then computed as the average response across subscale items. A within-person correlation is then computed based on the two sets of subscale scores for each scale. (Meade & Craig, 2012)

The correlation was then corrected for decreased length using the Spearman–Brown formula. Low individual reliability indicated IER (Huang et al., 2012).

统计方法：将单维问卷拆分成奇数偶数题目，计算相关系数，系数较低的可能（非必然）为不认真作答被试。

Lengthy strings of invariant responses (i.e., the same option being selected repeatedly) may be indicative of low-quality data. 计算被试对于不同题目提供连续相同答案的数量，5555555, 345，6666666, 此处连续出现七个“5”， 七个“6”。

Response patterns in which respondents consistently respond with the same answer (e.g., “5”) can be identified via an approach recommended by Johnson (2005). This index, termed LongString is computed as the maximum number of consecutive items on a single page to which the respondent answered with the same response option. (Meade & Craig, 2012)。

问题是到底多少个连续作答才能算是不认真作答，可以删除呢？

答案是目前并没有明确的说法。

Given that more extreme responses are less likely, researchers have recommended screens on the basis of 6 to 14 invariant responses in a row depending on which response options are being endorsed (Costa & McCrae, 2008; Huang et al., 2012). The longstring screen is recommended when researchers are administering multidimensional surveys or questionnaires with a mixture of positively and negatively scored items (DeSimone et al., 2015)。

There are no established global cut scores in place for it. In keepingwith the approach of Huang et al. (2012) regarding a conservative cut score for response time, this paper will suggest baseline rule of thumb that individuals with a string of consistent responses equal or greater than half the length of the total scalebe considered as C/IE responders by this tech- nique (Curran, 2016).

个人倾向于支持Curran, 就是如果连续作答的数目超过了问卷长度的一半，肯定可以判断为无效数据。其它的就需要谨慎。如果你想要更严格一些，那么下面的可以用，8，或9作为cutoff score，下面是支持的文献。

Costa and McCrae (2008), participants who indicate consecutive strings of at least six “strongly disagrees,” nine “disagrees,” ten “neither agree nor disagrees,” fourteen “agrees,” or nine “strongly agrees” should be flagged. Huang et al. (2012) revised these estimates to seven, seven, twelve, ten, and eight, respectively. The cutoff of nine invariant responses was chosen because it reflects the median ofCosta andMcCrae’s(2008) analysis and is close to the mean (8.80) of Huang et al.’s(2012)analysis.

此外，这种方法可能在混合了反向计分或正面描述及反面描述题目的情况下才有效，比如工作倦怠和工作投入。

The Mahalanobis D statistic (Mahalanobis, 1936) is a multivariate version of outlier analysis that compares a respondent’s scores to the sample mean scores across all.Specifically, the Mahalanobis D is an estimate of the multivariate distance between a respon- dent’s scores on survey items and the sample mean scores on survey items. The underlying assumption of this technique is that extreme deviation from the normative response pattern may be indicative of insufficient effort (DeSimone et al., 2015). Recent evidence suggests that Mahalanobis distance can be effective at identifying inattentive responses (Ehlers et al., 2009).

Examples include social desirability (e.g., Paulhus, 2002) and lie scales (e.g., MMPI-2 Lie scale), special scales designed to assess consistent responding (e.g., the MMPI-2 VRIN and TRIN scales)(Meade & Craig, 2012).

在这些问卷上得分较高的被试，值得关注。

The semantic synonym technique is designed to identify respondents who indicate dissimilar responses to similar items. For example, “I enjoy my job” may be deemed semantically synonymous with “I like my current occupation.” Alternatively, survey designers may opt to repeat an item (or set of items) later in a survey (DeSimone et al., 2015).

建议

实操

#careless data screen#using package "careless#install.packages #install.packages("careless")library(careless)library(foreign)#A data frame with 200 observations (rows) and 50 variables (columns).

#1.1 evenodd_within-person correlation betwen even adn odd subscales#evenodd(x, factors, diag = FALSE)careless_eo <- evenodd(careless_dataset, rep(5,10))

#1.2 Calculates the intra-individual response variability (IRV)irv_total <- irv(careless_dataset)irv_split <- irv(careless_dataset, split = TRUE, num.split = 4)boxplot(irv_split$irv4) #produce a boxplot of the IRV for the fourth quarter

#1.3 longstring analysis#function longstring(x, avg = FALSE)careless_long <- longstring(careless_dataset, avg = FALSE)careless_avg <- longstring(careless_dataset, avg = TRUE)boxplot(careless_avg$longstr) #produce a boxplot of the longstring index

#1.4 mahad#Find and graph Mahalanobis Distance (D) and   flag potential outliers.mahad_raw <- mahad(data) #only the   distances themselves

mahad_flags <- mahad(careless_dataset, flag   = TRUE) #additionally flag outliers