Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T15:08:39.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquiescent Responding in Balanced Multidimensional Scales and Exploratory Factor Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Urbano Lorenzo-Seva  and
Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells
Urbano Lorenzo-Seva*
Affiliation:
Rovira I Virgili University
Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells
Affiliation:
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats and University of Barcelona
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Urbano Lorenzo-Seva, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Facultat de Psicologia, Ctra. de Valls s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain. E-mail: uls@urv.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Personality tests often consist of a set of dichotomous or Likert items. These response formats are known to be susceptible to an agreeing-response bias called acquiescence. The common assumption in balanced scales is that the sum of appropriately reversed responses should be reasonably free of acquiescence. However, inter-item correlation (or covariance) matrices can still be affected by the presence of variance due to acquiescence. To analyse these correlation matrices, we propose a method that is based on an unrestricted factor analysis and can be applied to multidimensional scales. This method obtains a factor solution in which acquiescence response variance is isolated in an independent factor. It is therefore possible, without the potentially confounding effect of acquiescence, to: (a) examine the dominant factors related to content latent variables; and (b) estimate participants–factor scores on content latent variables. This method, which is illustrated by two empirical data examples, has proved to be useful for improving the simplicity of the factor structure.

Keywords

Acquiescencebalanced scalesexploratory factor analysisfactor simplicity

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 769 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (SEJ2005-09170-C04-04/PSIC), and a grant from the Catalan Ministry of Universities, the Research and Information Society (2005SGR00017). The authors are obliged to the team of reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Bentler, P.M. (1969). Semantic space is (approximately) bipolar. Journal of Psychology, 71, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1977). Factor simplicity index and transformations. Psychometrika, 59, 567–579.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M., Kano, Y. (1990). On the equivalence of factors and components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billiet, J.B., McClendon, M.J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, P.J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Chico, E. (2003). Unrestricted factor analytic procedures for assessing acquiescent responding in balanced, theoretically unidimensional personality scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, A.A.J., Hofstee, W.K.B., De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, A.A.J., Perugini, M., Angleitner, A., Bratko, D., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., Hrebícková, M., Johnson, J.A., Murakami, T., Nagy, J., Nussbaum, S., Ostendorf, F., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Ruisel, I. (2003). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Cross-cultural generalizability across 13 countries. European Journal of Personality, 17, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstee, W.K.B. (1994). Personality and factor analysis: Bind or bond. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 173–183.Google Scholar
Hofstee, W.K.B., ten Berge, J.M.F., Hendriks, A.A.J. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. K. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korth, B., Tucker, L.R. (1976). Procrustes matching by congruence coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentz, T.F. (1938). Acquiescence as a factor in the measurement of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 659.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2003). A factor simplicity index. Psychometrika, 68, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, J.J. (1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Andrés-Pueyo, A. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the five factor personality inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.M.F. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.M.F., Kiers, H.A.L. (1991). A numerical approach to the approximate and the exact minimum rank of a covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 56, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.M.F., Krijnen, W.P., Wansbeek, T., Shapiro, A. (1999). Some new results on correlation-preserving factor scores prediction methods. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 289, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.M.F., Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar