These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34855118)

  • 1. A Response-Time-Based Latent Response Mixture Model for Identifying and Modeling Careless and Insufficient Effort Responding in Survey Data.
    Ulitzsch E; Pohl S; Khorramdel L; Kroehne U; von Davier M
    Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):593-619. PubMed ID: 34855118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An explanatory mixture IRT model for careless and insufficient effort responding in self-report measures.
    Ulitzsch E; Yildirim-Erbasli SN; Gorgun G; Bulut O
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Nov; 75(3):668-698. PubMed ID: 35730351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accounting for careless and insufficient effort responding in large-scale survey data-development, evaluation, and application of a screen-time-based weighting procedure.
    Ulitzsch E; Shin HJ; Lüdtke O
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Feb; 56(2):804-825. PubMed ID: 36867339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality.
    Bowling NA; Huang JL; Bragg CB; Khazon S; Liu M; Blackmore CE
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2016 Aug; 111(2):218-29. PubMed ID: 26927958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Methods of Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparisons and Practical Recommendations.
    Hong M; Steedle JT; Cheng Y
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2020 Apr; 80(2):312-345. PubMed ID: 32158024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Relationship of Insufficient Effort Responding and Response Styles: An Online Experiment.
    Alarcon GM; Lee MA
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():784375. PubMed ID: 35095672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dealing with Careless Responding in Survey Data: Prevention, Identification, and Recommended Best Practices.
    Ward MK; Meade AW
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2023 Jan; 74():577-596. PubMed ID: 35973734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data.
    Huang JL; Liu M; Bowling NA
    J Appl Psychol; 2015 May; 100(3):828-45. PubMed ID: 25495093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Careless responding in internet-based quality of life assessments.
    Schneider S; May M; Stone AA
    Qual Life Res; 2018 Apr; 27(4):1077-1088. PubMed ID: 29248996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data.
    Arias VB; Garrido LE; Jenaro C; Martínez-Molina A; Arias B
    Behav Res Methods; 2020 Dec; 52(6):2489-2505. PubMed ID: 32462604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Identifying careless responses in survey data.
    Meade AW; Craig SB
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):437-55. PubMed ID: 22506584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Robust maximum marginal likelihood (RMML) estimation for item response theory models.
    Hong MR; Cheng Y
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Apr; 51(2):573-588. PubMed ID: 30350024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A change-point analysis procedure based on weighted residuals to detect back random responding.
    Yu X; Cheng Y
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Oct; 24(5):658-674. PubMed ID: 30762378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Detecting Careless Responding in Survey Data Using Stochastic Gradient Boosting.
    Schroeders U; Schmidt C; Gnambs T
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2022 Feb; 82(1):29-56. PubMed ID: 34992306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Assessment and Impact of Careless Responding in Routine Outcome Monitoring within Mental Health Care.
    Conijn JM; Franz G; Emons WHM; de Beurs E; Carlier IVE
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2019; 54(4):593-611. PubMed ID: 31001995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Empirical Tryout of a New Statistic for Detecting Temporally Inconsistent Responders.
    Kerry MJ
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():518. PubMed ID: 29692754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using Response Times to Model Not-Reached Items due to Time Limits.
    Pohl S; Ulitzsch E; von Davier M
    Psychometrika; 2019 Sep; 84(3):892-920. PubMed ID: 31054065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Erratum to: A Response-Time-Based Latent Response Mixture Model for Identifying and Modeling Careless and Insufficient Effort Responding in Survey Data.
    Ulitzsch E; Pohl S; Khorramdel L; Kroehne U; von Davier M
    Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):798. PubMed ID: 35171401
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A psychometric model for respondent-level anchoring on self-report rating scale instruments.
    Lyu W; Bolt DM
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Feb; 75(1):116-135. PubMed ID: 34350978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Hidden Markov Item Response Theory Models for Responses and Response Times.
    Molenaar D; Oberski D; Vermunt J; De Boeck P
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(5):606-626. PubMed ID: 27712114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.