dc.description.abstract |
The use of lie scales has a fairly long history in psychometrics, with the
intention of identifying and correcting for socially desirable answers. This
represents one type of common method variance (bias introduced when both
predictors and predicted variables are gathered from the same source), which may
lead to spurious associations in self-reports. Within traffic safety research,
where self-report methods are used abundantly, it is uncommon to control for
social desirability artifacts, or reporting associations between lie scales,
crashes and driver behaviour scales. In the present study, it was shown that
self-reports of traffic accidents were negatively associated with a lie scale
for driving, while recorded ones were not, as could be expected if the scale was
valid and a self-report bias existed. We conclude that whenever self-reported
crashes are used as an outcome variable and predicted by other self-report
measures, a lie scale should be included and used for correcting the
associations. However, the only existing lie scale for traffic safety is not
likely to catch all socially desirable responding, because traffic safety may
not be desirable for all demographic groups. New lie scales should be developed
specifically for driver behaviour questionnaires, to counter potential bias and
artifactual results. Alternatively, the use of a single source of data should be
discontinued. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
en_UK |