Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Articles

Questionnaire Response Latencies: Implications for Personality Assessment and Self-Schema Theory

Published Online:March 14, 2008https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.13.2.109

Abstract

We investigated whether the speed of responding to personality questionnaires affects the psychometric quality of the resulting questionnaire scores. Austrian adolescents (n = 106) completed Eysenck's Personality Inventory in a computerized version, which assessed single-item response latencies and the trait levels for neuroticism (N) and extraversion (E). We examined, first, the impact of questionnaire response instructions (speeded versus unspeeded) on test-retest reliability (7 weeks apart) and validity (self-peer agreement). A speeded instruction shortened response latencies, as expected, and made questionnaire scores more reliable (but not more valid). Second, we examined individual differences in habitual response speed. For N, fast responders showed greater validity (but not greater reliability) than slow responders; for E, no such effect was found. We explain these results by means of self-schemata, which appear to moderate the validity of personality assessments, but may do so differently for different traits.

References

  • Amelang, M. Eisenhut, K. Rindermann, H. (1991). Responding to adjective check list items - a reaction time analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 523– 534 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Amelang, M. Rindermann, H. Pirron, P. (1990). Beantwortungs-Zeiten von Fragen zu momentanen und überdauernden Eigenschaften. [Response times to questions on states and traits] Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 37, 541– 564 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, H.A. Anderson, G.L. (1951). An introduction to projective techniques . New York: Prentice-Hall First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bartley, S.H. (1958). Principles of perception . New York: Harper and Brothers First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dunn, T.G. Lushene, R.E. O'Neil, H.F. (1972). Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 381– 387 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eggert, D. (1974). Eysenck-Persönlichkeits-Inventar E-P-I . Göttingen: Hogrefe First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eysenck, H.J. Eysenck, S.B.G. (1964). The Eysenck Personality Inventory . London: University of London Press First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fahrenberg, J. Selg, H. Hampel, R. (1973). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar FPI . Göttingen: Hogrefe First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fekken, G.C. Holden, R.R. (1992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality traits as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 103– 120 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fekken, G.C. Jackson, D.N. (1988). Predicting consistent psychological test item responses - A comparison of models. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 873– 882 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Funder, D.C. West, S.G. (1993). Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 61, 457– 476 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Funder, D.C. Dobroth, K.M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409– 418 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gilbert, A.R. (1986). Measuring response latency: A crucial innovation of paper and pencil testing. Psychologia - An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 29, 108– 111 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hernais-Sanders, H. Pickering, A. Gray, J.A. (1992, June). Is response latency an optimal variable to test Gray's model of personality? . Poster presented at the 6th European Conference on Personality, Groningen, Netherlands First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hoeth, F. Büttel, R. Feyerabend, H. (1967). Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Validität von Persönlichkeitsfragebögen. [Experimental studies on the validity of personality questionnaires] Psychologische Rundschau, 18, 169– 184 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Holden, R.R. Kroner, D.G. (1992). Relative efficacy of differential response latency for detecting faking on a self-report measure of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 4, 170– 173 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holden, R.R. Kroner, D.G. Fekken, G.C. Popham, S.M. (1992). A model of personality test item response dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 272– 279 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hsu, L.M. Santelli, J. Hsu, J.R. (1989). Faking detection validity and incremental validity of response latencies to MMPI subtle and obvious item. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 278– 295 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jäger, R.S. (1991). Computer diagnostics - a survey: Practical applications of computerized assessment: Theoretical principles and perspectives. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Europeenne de Psychologie, 41, 247– 268 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Krämer, H.J. Schneider, J.F. (1987). Validität von Fragebogendaten in Abhängigkeit von Antwortzeit-Instruktion und der intraindividuellen Variabilität von Probanden. [Questionnaire validity affected by speed instruction and subjects' intraindividual variability] Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 458– 468 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kuiper, N. (1981). Convergent evidence for the self as prototype: The “inverted-U RT effect” for self and other judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438– 443 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuntz, D. (1974). Effects of faking instructions on the word-association test. Psychological Reports, 35, 1183– 1192 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leach, H.M. Washburn, M.F. (1910). Some tests by the association method of mental diagnosis. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 162– 167 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Malle, B.F. Horowitz, L.M. (1993, April). Negativity effects in self-perception and social perception . Paper presented at the joint WPA/RMPA convention, Phoenix, Arizona First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Malle, B.F. Horowitz, L.M. (1995). The puzzle of negative self-views: An explanation using the schema concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 470– 484 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Malle, B.F. Neubauer, A.C. (1991). Impulsivity, reflection and questionnaire response latencies: No evidence for a broad impulsivity trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 865– 871 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63– 78 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marston, W.M. (1920). Reaction time symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 72– 87 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maschke, P. (1989). Die Bearbeitungszeit von Persönlichkeitsfragebögen in der Eignungsauswahl: Ein Indikator für Verfälschung?. [Completion time of personality questionnaires: An indicator for faking] Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 10, 121– 127 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Michaelis, W. Eysenck, H.J. (1971). The determination of personality inventory factor patterns and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 223– 234 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paunonen, S.V. Jackson, D.N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and predictions: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Psychological Review, 92, 486– 511 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Popham, S.M. Holden, R.R. (1990). Assessing MMPI constructs through the measurement of response latencies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 469– 478 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rogers, T.B. (1973). Toward a definition of the difficulty of a personality item. Psychological Reports, 33, 159– 166 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rogosa, D. (1980). Comparing nonparallel regression lines. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 307– 321 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sambrooks, J.E. MacCulloch, M.J. (1973). A modification of the sexual orientation method and an automated method for presentation and scoring. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 163– 174 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schneider, J.F. Hübner, R. (1980). Einfluss von Verfälschungsinstruktionen auf die Bearbeitungszeit von Persönlichkeitsfragebögen. [The impact of faking instructions on response latencies to personality questionnaires] Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 2, 565– 579 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schneider-Düker, M. Schneider, J.F. (1977). Untersuchungen zum Beantwortungsprozess bei psychodiagnostischen Fragebögen. [Analyses of the process of responding to personality questionnaires] Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 24, 282– 302 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stout, R.L. (1981). New approaches to the design of computerized interviewing and testing systems. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 13, 436– 442 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sutherland, B.V. Spilka, B. (1964). Social desirability, item-response time, and item significance. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 447– 451 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56, 621– 663 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar