This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Howard, G. S. Articles by Gulanick, N. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Feasibility of Informed Pretests in Attenuating Response-Shift Bias

University of Houston

Patrick R. Dailey

University of Houston

Nancy A. Gulanick

University of Houston

Response-shift bias has been shown to contami nate self-reported pretest/posttest evaluations of various interventions. To eliminate the detrimental effects of response shifts, retrospective measures have been employed as substitutes for the tradi tional self-reported pretest. Informed pretests, wherein subjects are provided information about the construct being measured prior to completing the pretest self-report, are considered in the present studies as an alternative method to retrospective pretests in reducing response-shift effects. In Study 1 subjects were given a 20-minute presentation on assertiveness, which failed to significantly improve the accuracy of self-reported assertiveness. Other procedural influences hypothesized to improve self- report accuracy—previous experience with the ob jective measure of assertiveness and previous com pletion of the self-report measure—also were not related to increased self-report accuracy. In a second study, information about interviewing skills was provided at pretest using behaviorally anchored rating scales to participants in a workshop on in terviewing skills. Response-shift bias was not at tentuated by providing subjects with information about interviewing prior to the intervention. Change measures which employed retrospective pretest measures demonstrated somewhat higher (although nonsignificant) validity coefficients than measures of change utilizing informed pretest data.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 3, No. 4, 481-494 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/014662167900300406


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Holden, K. Barker, G. Rosenberg, and P. Onghena The Evaluation Self-Efficacy Scale for Assessing Progress Toward CSWE Accreditation Related Objectives: A Replication Research on Social Work Practice, January 1, 2008; 18(1): 42 - 46. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Holden, K. Barker, G. Rosenberg, and P. Onghena Assessing Progress Toward Accreditation Related Objectives: Evidence Regarding the Use of Self-Efficacy as an Outcome in the Advanced Concentration Research Curriculum Research on Social Work Practice, July 1, 2007; 17(4): 456 - 465. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. G. Hill and D. L. Betz Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest American Journal of Evaluation, December 1, 2005; 26(4): 501 - 517. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. C. M. Lam and P. Bengo A Comparison of Three Retrospective Self-reporting Methods of Measuring Change in Instructional Practice American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2003; 24(1): 65 - 80. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Holden, L. Cuzzi, S. Rutter, P. Chernack, and G. Rosenberg The Hospital Social Work Self-Efficacy Scale: A Replication Research on Social Work Practice, October 1, 1997; 7(4): 490 - 499. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Holden, L. Cuzzi, S. Rutter, G. Rosenberg, and P. Chernack The Hospital Social Work Self-Efficacy Scale: Initial Development Research on Social Work Practice, July 1, 1996; 6(3): 353 - 365. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. A. R. Robinson and H. J. Doueck Implications of the Pre/Post/Then Design for Evaluating Social Group Work Research on Social Work Practice, April 1, 1994; 4(2): 224 - 239. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. M. Skeff, G. A. Stratos, and M. R. Bergen Evaluation of a Medical Faculty Development Program: A Comparison of Traditional Pre/Post and Retrospective Pre/Post Self-Assessment Ratings Eval Health Prof, September 1, 1992; 15(3): 350 - 366. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Levinson, G. Gordon, and K. Skeff Retrospective Versus Actual Pre-Course Self-Assessments Eval Health Prof, December 1, 1990; 13(4): 445 - 452. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. S. Aiken and S. G. West Invalidity of True Experiments: Self-Report Pretest Biases Eval Rev, August 1, 1990; 14(4): 374 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. A. Randolph and D. F. Elloy How Can OD Consultants and Researchers Assess Gamma Change? A Comparison of Two Analytical Procedures Journal of Management, December 1, 1989; 15(4): 633 - 648. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. N. Tennis Responses to the Alpha, Beta, Gamma Change Typology: Cultural Resistance To Change Group Organization Management, June 1, 1989; 14(2): 134 - 149. [Abstract]

				G. S. Howard, J. Millham, S. Slaten, and L. O'Donnell Influence of Subject Response Style Effects on Retrospective Measures Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 1981; 5(1): 89 - 100. [Abstract]

				G. S. Howard A New Look at the Criterion Problem from the Perspective of Gelso's Bubble Hypothesis The Counseling Psychologist, December 1, 1980; 8(4): 63 - 69.