Search

This article reports results of a meta-analysis of survey response rates in published research in counseling and clinical psychology over a 20-year span and describes reported survey administration procedures in those fields. Results of 308 survey administrations showed a weighted average response rate of 49.6%. Among possible moderators, response rates differed only by population sampled, journal in which articles were published, sampling source and method, and use of follow-up. Researchers whose studies were included in this meta-analysis used follow-up but rarely used incentives, prenotification, or other response-facilitation methods to maximize response rates. Although the future of survey research in general may rely more heavily on Internet data collection, mail surveys dominate in this field. (Contains 2 tables.)

Individual differences in responsibility may be observed in a doctoral candidate's assumption of responsibility for completing the doctoral dissertation. Responses to the Responsibility Scale by 142 doctoral graduates and 97 nongraduates (all but dissertation) show that two factors underlie responses to the scale. Appendix contains the Responsibility Scale. (SLD)

Two factors, language difficulty and option set convergence, were experimentally manipulated and their effects on item difficulty assessed. Option convergence was found to have a significant effect on item difficulty while the effect of language difficulty was not significant. (Author/BW)

Five sets of paired comparison judgments were made concerning test item difficulty, in order to identify the most probable source of intrasensitivity in the data. The paired comparisons method was useful in providing information about sensitivity to stimulus differences, but less useful for assessing dimensionality of judgment criteria. (Author/GDC)

Achievement test reliability and validity as a function of ability were determined for multiple sections of a large undergraduate French class. Results did not support previous arguments that decreasing the number of options results in a more efficient test for high-level examinees, but less efficient for low-level examinees. (Author/GK)