2022
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000699
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Single Item Measures in Psychological Science

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
181
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 362 publications
(250 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
6
181
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This face-valid assessment of felt-femininity is similar to prior assessments of masculine discrepancy strain during daily life (drops in felt-masculinity), which revealed the same links with aggressive behavior as those shown from experimental manipulations of context-level masculine discrepancy strain (i.e., threats to masculinity; Overall et al, 2016). Moreover, single-item assessments are common in daily sampling studies to reduce participant burden, and are appropriate, and even preferable, when the construct being measured is specific and unambiguous (see Allen et al, 2022).…”
Section: Daily Feelings Of Femininitysupporting
confidence: 65%
“…This face-valid assessment of felt-femininity is similar to prior assessments of masculine discrepancy strain during daily life (drops in felt-masculinity), which revealed the same links with aggressive behavior as those shown from experimental manipulations of context-level masculine discrepancy strain (i.e., threats to masculinity; Overall et al, 2016). Moreover, single-item assessments are common in daily sampling studies to reduce participant burden, and are appropriate, and even preferable, when the construct being measured is specific and unambiguous (see Allen et al, 2022).…”
Section: Daily Feelings Of Femininitysupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Single-item measures have had bad reputation, while a series of recent published articles have done much to alleviate the stigma surrounding single-item measures ( 52 ). Arguments against single-item measures include assertions that single-item measures have uncertain reliability and lack the capacity to conduct finer-grained assessment ( 52 ). Therefore, developing multi-item measurements for social media use is warranted for bettering current research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, some scholars argue that the use of single-item measure should not necessarily be considered unreliable when the construct is unambiguous and narrow in scope ( 53 , 54 ). Furthermore, using single-item measures could save administration time, avoid confusion and improve the recovery rate of questionnaires ( 52 ), and it is interesting to note that single-item measures are not less valid or reliable than their multi-item counterparts in health and psychological research domains ( 55 , 56 ). In our research and survey, social media use is a general behavior and a unidimensional, clearly defined and unquestioned construct, which made it not a serious threat to the confidence of our results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the type of questions used, we acknowledge that single-item scales do not have a good reputation among psychology researchers, and the discipline’s tradition is to prefer multi-item scales ( Allen et al, 2022 ). Because in traditional measurement theory the items are supposed to represent a random selection from the hypothetical domain of indicators of the construct ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ), multi-item scales could capture the whole complexity of any construct better than single-item scales.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%