東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

A comparison of social desirability ...

Kent State University.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding./
Author:	Rossiter, John C.
Description:	207 p.
Notes:	Advisers: Rafa Kasim; Shawn Fitzgerald.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International70-04A.
Subject:	Education, General. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoeng/servlet/advanced?query=3353799
ISBN:	9781109105421

A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding.
Rossiter, John C.

A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding. - 207 p.

Advisers: Rafa Kasim; Shawn Fitzgerald.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Kent State University, 2009.

Four different data collection methods (face to face interviews, telephone interviews, mail surveys, and Web-based surveys) compared Social Desirability Bias (SDB). This study used Multiple Comparison tests and a randomized post-test only control-group design. No SDB differences were found among methods. For SDB no gender (2-factor), ethnicity (2-factor), nor was a gender and ethnicity (3-factor) interaction found. This study was more rigorous than other studies because 13 known extraneous influences were controlled for and two more were avoided. Effect sizes ranged from .002 to .029. Implications are: SDB need not trouble researchers when comparing the 4 methods and SDB may be decreasing over time. Suggestions for future research include (1) studies between non-published and published studies; (2) meta analytic method comparisons over well-established constructs; (3) meta analytic studies on SDB over time; (4) measurement invariance of the 4 methods on SDB; and other suggestions.

ISBN: 9781109105421Subjects--Topical Terms:

1019158
Education, General.

A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding.
LDR:02037nam 2200289 a 45 001 857110
005 20100709
008 100709s2009 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781109105421
035 $a (UMI)AAI3353799
035 $a AAI3353799
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Rossiter, John C. $3 1024036
245 1 2 $a A comparison of social desirability bias among four widely used methods of data collection as measured by the impression management subscale of the balance inventory of desirable responding.
300 $a 207 p.
500 $a Advisers: Rafa Kasim; Shawn Fitzgerald.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 70-04, Section: A, page: .
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Kent State University, 2009.
520 $a Four different data collection methods (face to face interviews, telephone interviews, mail surveys, and Web-based surveys) compared Social Desirability Bias (SDB). This study used Multiple Comparison tests and a randomized post-test only control-group design. No SDB differences were found among methods. For SDB no gender (2-factor), ethnicity (2-factor), nor was a gender and ethnicity (3-factor) interaction found. This study was more rigorous than other studies because 13 known extraneous influences were controlled for and two more were avoided. Effect sizes ranged from .002 to .029. Implications are: SDB need not trouble researchers when comparing the 4 methods and SDB may be decreasing over time. Suggestions for future research include (1) studies between non-published and published studies; (2) meta analytic method comparisons over well-established constructs; (3) meta analytic studies on SDB over time; (4) measurement invariance of the 4 methods on SDB; and other suggestions.
590 $a School code: 0101.
650 4 $a Education, General. $3 1019158
650 4 $a Psychology, General. $3 1018034
690 $a 0515
690 $a 0621
710 2 $a Kent State University. $3 1017419
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 70-04A.
790 $a 0101
790 1 0 $a Fitzgerald, Shawn, $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Kasim, Rafa, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2009
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoeng/servlet/advanced?query=3353799