24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

waterlife8788

新虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1054.7
散金: 150
红花: 3
帖子: 306
在线: 62.7小时
虫号: 731565
注册: 2009-03-26
专业: 心理学

[交流] 【分享体会与据信】Personality and Individual Differences 已有5人参与

周期还可以，两个月内，收到据信，跟大家分享；个人感觉方法之类的不是问题，关键还是research question的阐述，一定得明确且吸引人。contributions也是不可或缺的了，而这两点对于我们这些”土鳖“来说恰恰是最难的。方法部分reviewer的意见比较精细，有助于规范化，但不见得是完全正确的。如下comments可以说给出了较好的框架可供各位社会类管理学科的虫友参考。
======================
Associate Editor comments:

Well, as you can see from Reviewer #1 (and from "between the lines" of reviewer #2), you have many problems with this study/manuscript.

Not least is the one question that came to my mind as I was reading the manuscript "what are the consequences of these results"?

Right now, the manuscript reads like an abstract exercise in the application of statistical methodology to some data, in isolation from anything meaningful in a "substantive science" sense. That's where my "consequences" need adressing - both in the Introduction (e.g why is any of this important at all), and in the Discussion (e.g. What does this mean for practitioners who use personality data to assist them in making decisions about individuals?).

Hence, you need to rethink this manuscript from the ground up, and give it some substance rather than just present a couple of factor analyses. This is beyond a simple revise and submit decision.

Sorry I couldn't accept the manuscript for publication this time. But, you have some clear guidelines now as to how to add some "firepower" to the paper, from both reviewers and myself.

Regards .. Paul

==================================================================

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This study aims to examine the structural and discriminant validity of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIRD), administered to a sample of Chinese university students (N=600). Based on a series of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), the results suggest that a 4-factor model fits the data best, where both the self-deception (SD) and the impression management (IM) factors can be split into separate enhancement (E) and denial (D) components.
The topic is interesting. Yet, I have some points to make which I hope that the authors will find of help.

Introduction
1)    In the introduction, a critical review on the previous models of socially desirable responding (e.g., presented by Helmes & Holden, 2003; Leite & Beretvas, 2005) should be added, together with a description of how the present study might overcome the limitations of the existing research.

Methods
2)    A description of inclusion/ exclusion criteria and the sampling method used should be clearly presented. Response rate and the characteristics of those who denied to participate in the study should also be presented.
3)    Ethical issues (e.g., informed consent obtained, ethical approval granted) should be presented in the Methods section.
4)    Details regarding the psychometric properties (i.e., validity) of the Chinese version of the instruments used (e.g., Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NEO FFI, STAI) to measure additional variables should be reported. Information should also be provided about the development of the 30-item Chinese version of BIRD, given that the original standard version consisted of 40 items.

Results
5)    Regarding Table 1, the authors should present additional goodness-of-fit indices for each model, such as the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMS), the model Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the model Consistency Akaike Information Criterion (CAIC), and the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), together with the selected cut-off values to judge the adequacy of each model fit.

6)    The authors made no effort to improve model fit, by freeing certain elements of the matrix of factors loadings, or of the covariance matrix of measurement errors in the observed variables, that had been initially specified to be fixed. They should justify their option.

7)    Since there was previous evidence that the SD and IM factors could be both partitioned into separate E and D components, a CFA model with 4 first order factors (i.e., SD-E, SD-D, IM-E, IM-D) and 2 second order factors (SD, IM) should be more appropriate and should have been tested.

8)    I would raise doubts about the proper use of principal components analysis with varimax rotation, employed during exploratory factor analysis of the correlations between the six subscales (SD-E, SD-D, IM-E, IM-D, SE-D, SE-E), given that these were expected to be correlated. Instead, another method of analysis should have been used (e.g., principal axis factoring with oblique rotation).

9)    Regarding Table 2, the authors should note that the vast majority of the factor loadings were less than 0.50 (i.e., suggesting no more than 25% overlapping variance of an item with the other items in a factor). In fact, there were some items (#2 and 19) with factor loadings <0.30, meaning that they were very poor indicators of their underlying factors. Moreover, no information about any cross-loading items is given.

10)    Regarding Table 3, the authors should note the very low internal consistency reliabilities (<0.70) of all four scales. The same holds true for two of the five NEO-FFI scales and three of the four Self-monitoring scales (Table 4). Thus, it appears that some test scales are totally unreliable.

Discussion
11)    The authors should consider discussing their results within a cultural orientation framework (collectivism vs individualism; Triandis et al., 1995, 2002).
12)    The authors should make suggestions for improvements on their research, and for new research, in an effort to determine whether a socially desirable response measure represents primarily an index of response set, response style, or some substantive personality characteristic.

Reviewer #2: The paper is acceptable to following corrects:

1-The part of the participants is uncomplete (such as, sampling method, demographical charactristics, ...).
2-What is question research?
3-How were participants selected and using which samping method?
4-Why do not exploratory analysis?
5-There is no evidence about factor analysis social desirability.
6-There is no evidence of theory base social desirbility.

[ Last edited by waterlife8788 on 2010-7-28 at 11:08 ]

回复此楼