IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v73y2018i1p64-74..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extracting Response Style Bias From Measures of Positive and Negative Affect in Aging Research

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Schneider

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the role of response style biases in the assessment of positive and negative affect in aging research; it addressed whether response styles (a) are associated with age-related changes in cognitive abilities, (b) lead to distorted conclusions about age differences in affect, and (c) reduce the convergent and predictive validity of affect measures in relation to health outcomes.MethodA multidimensional item response theory model was used to extract response styles from affect ratings provided by respondents to the psychosocial questionnaire (n = 6,295; aged 50–100 years) in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Results: The likelihood of extreme response styles (disproportionate use of “not at all†and “very much†response categories) increased significantly with age, and this effect was mediated by age-related decreases in HRS cognitive test scores. Removing response styles from affect measures did not alter age patterns in positive and negative affect; however, it consistently enhanced the convergent validity (relationships with concurrent depression and mental health problems) and predictive validity (prospective relationships with hospital visits, physical illness onset) of the affect measures. Discussion: The results support the importance of detecting and controlling response styles when studying self-reported affect in aging research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Schneider, 2018. "Extracting Response Style Bias From Measures of Positive and Negative Affect in Aging Research," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 73(1), pages 64-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:73:y:2018:i:1:p:64-74.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbw103
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:73:y:2018:i:1:p:64-74.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.