Although reverse-worded items have often been incorporated in scale construction to minimize the effects of acquiescent reporting biases, some researchers have more recently begun questioning this approach and wondering whether the advantages associated with incorporating reverse-worded items is worth the complexities that they bring to measures (e.g., Brown, 2003 Brown, T. 2003. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects?. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41: 1411–1426. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Marsh, 1996 Marsh, H. W. 1996. Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 810–819. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In this study, we used item response theory (IRT) to determine whether there is statistical justification to eliminate the reverse-worded items (e.g., “I have lots of friends”) from the Loneliness Questionnaire (LQ; Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984) and retain only the non-reverse-worded items (e.g., “I’m lonely”) to inform the provision of a shortened LQ version. Using a large sample of children (Grades 2–7; n = 6,784) and adolescents (Grades 8–12; n = 4,941), we examined the psychometric properties of the 24-item LQ and found support for retaining the 9 non-reverse-worded LQ items to make up a shortened measure of loneliness in youth. We found that the non-reverse-worded items were associated with superior psychometric properties relative to the reverse-worded items with respect to reliability and IRT parameters (e.g., discrimination and item information). A 3-point Likert-type scale was also found to be more suitable for measuring loneliness across both children and adolescents compared to the original 5-point scale. The relative contributions of reverse-worded and non-reverse-worded items in scale development for youth instruments are also discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebesutani et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: