Limits...
Methodological considerations regarding response bias effect in substance use research: is correlation between the measured variables sufficient?

Petróczi A, Nepusz T - Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy (2011)

Bottom Line: Based on low correlation coefficients (</0.22/) observed in the overall sample, SD effect on the indicator variables could be disregarded.The results of this study clearly demonstrate the presence of SD effect and the inadequacy of the commonly used pairwise correlation to assess social desirability at model level.Over and above controlling the effect of socially desirable responding in research that makes inferences based on self-reported information on social cognitive and behavioural measures, it is recommended that SD effect is appropriately assessed during data analysis.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Kingston University, Faculty of Science, School of Life Sciences, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE, UK. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
Efforts for drug free sport include developing a better understanding of the behavioural determinants that underline doping with an increased interest in developing anti-doping prevention and intervention programmes. Empirical testing of both is dominated by self-report questionnaires, which is the most widely used method in psychological assessments and sociology polls. Disturbingly, the potential distorting effect of socially desirable responding (SD) is seldom considered in doping research, or dismissed based on weak correlation between some SD measure and the variables of interest. The aim of this report is to draw attention to i) the potential distorting effect of SD and ii) the limitation of using correlation analysis between a SD measure and the individual measures. Models of doping opinion as a potentially contentious issue was tested using structural equation modeling technique (SEM) with and without the SD variable, on a dataset of 278 athletes, assessing the SD effect both at the i) indicator and ii) construct levels, as well as iii) testing SD as an independent variable affecting expressed doping opinion. Participants were categorised by their SD score into high- and low SD groups. Based on low correlation coefficients (

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Model of doping opinion without SD (baseline model). Ovals are constructs (latent variables), rectangles are observed variables; arrows indicate the direction of the relationship. MED: perceived control over medication, TR: perceived control over training, DIET: perceived control over diet, EXT: self-reported external deterrence factors, INT: self-reported internal deterrence factors, PEAS: explicit doping attitude.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3037907&req=5

Figure 1: Model of doping opinion without SD (baseline model). Ovals are constructs (latent variables), rectangles are observed variables; arrows indicate the direction of the relationship. MED: perceived control over medication, TR: perceived control over training, DIET: perceived control over diet, EXT: self-reported external deterrence factors, INT: self-reported internal deterrence factors, PEAS: explicit doping attitude.

Mentions: For this study, a subset of the data used for testing the performance enhancement model [12] was re-analysed using structural equation modeling technique to include a SD variable. The proposed model focuses on opinion formation and is depicted in Figure 1 (baseline model), In line with the current concepts of SD [32,34,35,38] the subsequent models were formulated to test the extent to which the SD is an independent variable that affects the other measured predictor variables at the construct level (Figure 2) and indicator level for the predictor variables (Figure 3); or SD is among the independent predictors affecting expressed doping opinion (Figure 4).


Methodological considerations regarding response bias effect in substance use research: is correlation between the measured variables sufficient?

Petróczi A, Nepusz T - Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy (2011)

Model of doping opinion without SD (baseline model). Ovals are constructs (latent variables), rectangles are observed variables; arrows indicate the direction of the relationship. MED: perceived control over medication, TR: perceived control over training, DIET: perceived control over diet, EXT: self-reported external deterrence factors, INT: self-reported internal deterrence factors, PEAS: explicit doping attitude.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3037907&req=5

Figure 1: Model of doping opinion without SD (baseline model). Ovals are constructs (latent variables), rectangles are observed variables; arrows indicate the direction of the relationship. MED: perceived control over medication, TR: perceived control over training, DIET: perceived control over diet, EXT: self-reported external deterrence factors, INT: self-reported internal deterrence factors, PEAS: explicit doping attitude.
Mentions: For this study, a subset of the data used for testing the performance enhancement model [12] was re-analysed using structural equation modeling technique to include a SD variable. The proposed model focuses on opinion formation and is depicted in Figure 1 (baseline model), In line with the current concepts of SD [32,34,35,38] the subsequent models were formulated to test the extent to which the SD is an independent variable that affects the other measured predictor variables at the construct level (Figure 2) and indicator level for the predictor variables (Figure 3); or SD is among the independent predictors affecting expressed doping opinion (Figure 4).

Bottom Line: Based on low correlation coefficients (</0.22/) observed in the overall sample, SD effect on the indicator variables could be disregarded.The results of this study clearly demonstrate the presence of SD effect and the inadequacy of the commonly used pairwise correlation to assess social desirability at model level.Over and above controlling the effect of socially desirable responding in research that makes inferences based on self-reported information on social cognitive and behavioural measures, it is recommended that SD effect is appropriately assessed during data analysis.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Kingston University, Faculty of Science, School of Life Sciences, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE, UK. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
Efforts for drug free sport include developing a better understanding of the behavioural determinants that underline doping with an increased interest in developing anti-doping prevention and intervention programmes. Empirical testing of both is dominated by self-report questionnaires, which is the most widely used method in psychological assessments and sociology polls. Disturbingly, the potential distorting effect of socially desirable responding (SD) is seldom considered in doping research, or dismissed based on weak correlation between some SD measure and the variables of interest. The aim of this report is to draw attention to i) the potential distorting effect of SD and ii) the limitation of using correlation analysis between a SD measure and the individual measures. Models of doping opinion as a potentially contentious issue was tested using structural equation modeling technique (SEM) with and without the SD variable, on a dataset of 278 athletes, assessing the SD effect both at the i) indicator and ii) construct levels, as well as iii) testing SD as an independent variable affecting expressed doping opinion. Participants were categorised by their SD score into high- and low SD groups. Based on low correlation coefficients (

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus