Over the past two decades, multiple specialized tools and software packages have become available that support these methods (e.g., Cowie et al., 2000 Girard, 2014 Girard & Wright, 2018 Larsen et al., 2009 Nagel et al., 2007 Schubert, 1999 Sharma et al., 2017 Zhang et al., 2020). Together, these findings suggest that our two-handed method for two-dimensional continuous ratings is a powerful and reliable tool for future research.Ĭontinuous self-report methods were pioneered in the 1930s (Peterman, 1940) and have come to be increasingly used from the mid-1980s onwards (see Biocca et al., 1994 Geringer et al., 2004 Gottman & Levenson, 1985 Gregory, 1989 Ruef & Levenson, 2007 Tan & van den Boom, 1992). The validity of two-dimensional responding was also demonstrated in comparison to one-dimensional reporting, and in relation to post hoc ratings. Results show that our new method is easier to use, faster, more accurate, with reduced method-driven dependence between the two dimensions, and preferred by participants. In a series of tasks, the study reported here addressed these limitations by comparing a previously used method to a newly developed two-handed method, and by explicitly testing the validity of continuous two-dimensional responses. Third, two-dimensional reports have primarily been validated for consistency between reporters, rather than the predictive validity of idiosyncratic responses. Second, respondents report on two dimensions using one hand, which may produce method driven error, including spurious relationships between the two dimensions.
First, current methods are primarily suited for bipolar, as opposed to unipolar, constructs. For all the variety of approaches, several limitations are inherent to most of them. Recent studies have extended continuous self-report methods to simultaneously collecting ratings on two dimensions of an experience. Research on fine-grained dynamic psychological processes has increasingly come to rely on continuous self-report measures.
0 kommentar(er)
