Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug safety reporting. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:865–9.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. N Engl J Med. 2013; 362:814–22.
Google Scholar
Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 1950; 6:1094–105.
Article
Google Scholar
Basch E, Torda P, Adams K. Standards for patient-reported outcome-based performance measures. J Am Med Assoc. 2013; 310:139–40.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005; 23:53–7.
Google Scholar
Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al.ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013; 4:1889–905.
Article
Google Scholar
PROMIS Instrument Development and Psychometric Evaluation Scientific Standards. 2012. Available at: http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf.
Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JB. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J Marketing Res. 2001; 38:143–56.
Article
Google Scholar
Greenleaf EA. Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. J Market Res. 1992; 29:176–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of Personality and Social Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 1991. p. 17–59.
Google Scholar
Clarke I. Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. Int Market Rev. 2001; 18:301–24.
Article
Google Scholar
Kieruj ND, Moors G. Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in attitude research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2010; 22:320–42.
Article
Google Scholar
Wetzel E, Lüdtke O, Zettler I, Bohnke JR. The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment. 2015; 23:279–91.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
van Vaerenbergh Y, Thomas TD. Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Int J Public Opin Res. 2013; 25:195–217.
Article
Google Scholar
Greenleaf EA. Measuring extreme response style. Public Opin Q. 1992; 56:328–51.
Article
Google Scholar
Bolt DM, Johnson TR. Addressing score bias and differential item functioning due to individual differences in response style. Appl Psychol Meas. 2009; 33:335–52.
Article
Google Scholar
Thissen-Roe A, Thissen D. A two-decision model for responses to likert-type items. J Educ Behav Stat. 2013; 38:522–47.
Article
Google Scholar
Hamilton DC. Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychol Bull. 1968; 69:192–203.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Plieger T, Montag C, Felten A, Reuter M. The serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-httlpr) and personality: response style as a new endophenotype for anxiety. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014; 17:851–8.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Meisenberg G, Williams A. Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?Pers Individ Diff. 2008; 44:1539–50.
Article
Google Scholar
Azocar F, Areán P, Miranda J, Muñoz RF. Differential item functioning in a spanish translation of the beck depression inventory. J Clin Psychol. 2001; 57:355–65.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bachman J. G, O’Malley P. M. Response styles revisited: racial/ethnic and gender differences in extreme responding. 2010. Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/occpapers/occ72.pdf.
Hamamura T, Heine SJ, Paulhus DL. Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Pers Ind Diff. 2008; 44:932–42.
Article
Google Scholar
Harzing AW. Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. Int J Cross Cultural Manage. 2006; 6:243–66.
Article
Google Scholar
Marin G, Gamba RJ, Marin BV. Extreme response style and acquiescence among hispanics:the role of acculturation and education. J Cross-Cultural Psychol. 1992; 23:498–509.
Article
Google Scholar
Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale: Routledge; 2012.
Google Scholar
McHorney CA, Fleishman JA. Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Medical Care. 2006; 44:205–10.
Article
Google Scholar
Teresi JA, Ramirez M, Lai JS, Silver S. Occurrences and sources of differential item functioning (dif) in patient-reported outcome measures: Description of dif methods, and review of measures of depression, quality of life and general health. Psychol Sci Q. 2008; 50:538.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, et al. Analysis of differential item functioning in the depression item bank from the patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS): An item response theory approachn. Psychol Sci Q. 2009; 51:148–80.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Varni JW, Thissen D, Stucky BD, et al.PROMIS parent proxy report scales for children ages 5–7 years: An item response theory analysis of differential item functioning across age groups. J Cross-Cultural Psychol. 2014; 23:349–61.
Google Scholar
Wetzel E, Böhnke J, Carstensen CH, Ziegler M, Ostendorf F. Do individual response styles matter? assessing differential item functioning for men and women in the NEO-PI-R. J Ind Diff. 2013; 34:69–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Cronbach LJ. Response sets and test validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1946; 6:75–494.
Google Scholar
Cronbach LJ. Further evidence of response set test design. Educ Psychol Meas. 1950; 10:3–31.
Article
Google Scholar
Böhnke JR, Croudace TJ. Factors of psychological distress: clinical value, measurement substance, and methodological artefacts. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015; 50:515–24.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Elliott MN, Haviland AM, Kanouse D, Hambarsoomian K, Hays R. Adjusting for subgroup differences in extreme response tendency in ratings of health care: impact on disparity estimates. Health Services Res. 2009; 44:542–61.
Article
Google Scholar
Peterson TJ, Feldman G, Harley R, Fresco DM, Graves L, Holmes A, Bogdan R, Papakostas G, Bohn L, Lury R. Extreme response style in recurrent and chronically depressed patients: Change with antidepressant administration and stability during continuation treatment. J Consult Clinical Psychol. 2007; 75:145–53.
Article
Google Scholar
Weech-Maldonado R, Elliott MN, Oluwole A, Schiller K, Hays R. Survey response style and differential use of CHAPS rating scales by hispanics. Med Care. 2008; 46:963–8.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R Professional Manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Google Scholar
Moors G. Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Qual Quantity. 2008; 42:779–94.
Article
Google Scholar
Bolt DM, Newton JR. Multiscale measurement of extreme response style. Educ Psychol Meas. 2011; 71:814–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Moors G. Diagnosing response style behavior by means of a latent-class factor approach: Sociodemographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination reexamined. Qual Quantity. 2003; 37:277–302.
Article
Google Scholar
Rost J, Carstensen CH, von Davier M. Applying the mixed rasch model to personality questionnaires In: Rost J, Langeheine R, editors. Applications of Latent Trait and Latent Class Models in the Social Sciences. Munster, Germany: Waxmann: 1997. p. 324–32.
Google Scholar
van Rosmalen J, van Herk H, Groenen PJF. Identifying response styles: A latent-class bilinear multinomial logit model. J Market Res. 2010; 47:157–72.
Article
Google Scholar
Moors G. Facts and artifacts in the comparison of attitudes among ethnic minorities. a multigroup latent class structure model with adjustment for response style behavior. Eur Sociol Rev. 2004; 20:303–20.
Article
Google Scholar
Rost J. Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Appl Psychol Meas. 1990; 14:271–82.
Article
Google Scholar
De Jong MG, Steenkamp J, Fox J, Baumgartner H. Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. J Market Res. 2008; 45:104–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Morren M, Gelissen J, Vermunt JK. Dealing with extreme response style in cross-cultural research: A restricted latent class factor analysis approach. Sociol Methodol. 2011; 41:13–47.
Article
Google Scholar
Johnson TR, Bolt DM. On the use of factor-analytic multinomial logit item response models to account for individual differences in response style. J Educ Behav Stat. 2010; 35:92–114.
Article
Google Scholar
Böckenholt U. Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17:665–78.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Zettler I, Lang J, Hülsheger UR, Hilbig BE. Dissociating indifferent, directional, and extreme responding in personality data: Applying the three-process model to self-and observer reports. J Pers. 2015. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jopy.12172.
Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Technical guide for Latent GOLD 5.0: Basic, advanced, and syntax. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.; 2013.
Google Scholar
Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Latent GOLD 5.0 upgrade manual. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc; 2013.
Google Scholar
Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS. Overview and findings from the religious orders study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012; 9:628–45.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Barnes LL, Schneider JA, Bach J, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Individual differences in rates of change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychol Aging. 2002; 17:179–93.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
McCrae RR, Kurtz JE, Yamagata S, Terracciano A. Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2011; 15:28–50.
Article
Google Scholar
Aldinger M, Stopsack M, Ulrich I, Appel K, Reinelt E, Wolff S, Grabe HJ, Lang S, Barnow S. Neuroticism developmental courses-implications for depression, anxiety and everyday emotional experience; a prospective study from adolescence to young adulthood. BMC Psychiatry. 2014; 14:210.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Goodwin RD, Stein MB. Peptic ulcer disease and neuroticism in the united states adult population. Psychother Psychosom. 2003; 72:10–5.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kendler KS, Gatz M, Gardner CO, Pedersen NL. Personality and major depression: a swedish longitudinal, population-based twin study. Arch Gen Psychiat. 2006; 63:1113–20.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Muraki E. Ia generalized partial credit model: Application of an em algorithm. ETS Res Report Ser. 1992; 1:1–30.
Google Scholar
Li Y, Baser R. Using R and WinBUGS to fit a generalized partial credit model for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcomes assessments. Stat Med. 2012; 31:2010–26.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978; 6:461–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Cont. 1974; 19:716–23.
Article
Google Scholar
Terracciano A, Sutin AR, An Y, O’Brien R, Zonderman AB, Resnick SM. Personality and risk of alzheimer’s disease: New data and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2014; 10:179–86.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cox D. Analysis of Survival Data. London: CRC Press; 1984.
Google Scholar
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
Google Scholar
Dignam JJ, Kocherginsky MN. Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26:4027–34.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Blanchin M, Hardouin JB, Neel TL, Kubis G, Blanchard C, Mirallié E, Sébille V. Comparison of ctt and rasch-based approaches for the analysis of longitudinal patient reported outcomes. Stat Med. 2011; 30(8):825–38.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bock E, Hardouin JB, Blanchin M, Le Neel T, Kubis G, Bonnaud-Antignac A, Dantan E, Sébille V. Rasch-family models are more valuable than score based approaches for analysing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with missing data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2013. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0962280213515570.
Alonso J, Bartlett SJ, Rose M, Aaronson NK, Chaplin JE, Efficace F, Leplège A, Lu A, Tulsky DS, Raat H, Ravens-Sieberer U, Revicki D, Terwee CB, Valderas JM, Cella D, Forrest CB. The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (promis®;) initiative. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11:1–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Janssens A, Rogers M, Coon JT, Allen K, Green C, Jenkinson C, Tennant A, Logan S, Morris C. A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part ii: evaluation of psychometric performance of english-language versions in a general population. Value Health. 2015; 18:334–45.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Watt T, Barbesino G, Bjorner JB, Bonnema SJ, Bukvic B, Drummond R, Groenvold M, Hegedüs L, Kantzer V, Lasch KE, Mishra A, Netea-Maier R, Ekker M, Paunovic I, Quinn TJ, Rasmussen K, Russell A, Sabaretnam M, Smit J, Torring O, Zivaljevic V, Feldt-Rasmussen U. Cross-cultural validity of the thyroid-specific quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measure, thypro. Qual Life Res. 2005; 24:769–80.
Article
Google Scholar
Johnson T, Kulesa P, Cho Y, Shavitt S. The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. J Cross-cultural Psychol. 2005; 36:264–77.
Article
Google Scholar
Lu Y, Bolt DM. Examining the attitude-achievement paradox in pisa using a multilevel multidimensional irt model for extreme response style. Large-scale Assessments Educ. 2015; 3:1–18.
Article
Google Scholar
Falk CF, Cai L. A flexible full-information approach to the modeling of response styles. Psychological Methods. 2015. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/met0000059.
Bolt DM, Lu Y, Kim JS. Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychol Methods. 2014; 19:528–41.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Strobl C, Kopf J, Zeileis A. Rasch trees: A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the rasch model. Psychometrika. 2015; 80(2):289–316.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar