A Misleading Review of Response Bias: Comment on McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and Hough (2010)

Autor/inn/en	Rohling, Martin L.; Larrabee, Glenn J.; Greiffenstein, Manfred F.; Ben-Porath, Yossef S.; Lees-Haley, Paul; Green, Paul; Greve, Kevin W.
Titel	A Misleading Review of Response Bias: Comment on McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and Hough (2010)
Quelle	In: Psychological Bulletin, 137 (2011) 4, S.708-712 (5 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0033-2909
DOI	10.1037/a0023327
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Neuropsychology; Response Style (Tests); Bias; Test Validity; Research Methodology; Error Patterns; Inclusion; Criteria; Data Interpretation; Evidence; Selection; Journal Articles; Evaluation Methods; Expertise + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Neuropsychologie; Antwortverhalten; Testvalidität; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Fehlertyp; Inklusion; Data evaluation; Datenauswertung; Evidenz; Auslese; Journal article; Zeitschriftenaufsatz; Expert appraisal
Abstract	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. (Contains 1 footnote.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10