Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Principles Underlying the Use of Multiple Informants' Reports

Principles Underlying the Use of Multiple Informants' Reports Researchers use multiple informants' reports to assess and examine behavior. However, informants' reports commonly disagree. Informants' reports often disagree in their perceived levels of a behavior (“low” versus “elevated” mood), and examining multiple reports in a single study often results in inconsistent findings. Although researchers often espouse taking a multi-informant assessment approach, they frequently address informant discrepancies using techniques that treat discrepancies as measurement error. Yet, recent work indicates that researchers in a variety of fields often may be unable to justify treating informant discrepancies as measurement error. In this review, the authors advance a framework (Operations Triad Model) outlining general principles for using and interpreting informants' reports. Using the framework, researchers can test whether or not they can extract meaningful information about behavior from discrepancies among multiple informants' reports. The authors provide supportive evidence for this framework and discuss its implications for hypothesis testing, study design, and quantitative review. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Annual Reviews

Loading next page...
 
/lp/annual-reviews/principles-underlying-the-use-of-multiple-informants-reports-7YStS5dYox

References (107)

Publisher
Annual Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
ISSN
1548-5943
eISSN
1548-5951
DOI
10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185617
pmid
23140332
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Researchers use multiple informants' reports to assess and examine behavior. However, informants' reports commonly disagree. Informants' reports often disagree in their perceived levels of a behavior (“low” versus “elevated” mood), and examining multiple reports in a single study often results in inconsistent findings. Although researchers often espouse taking a multi-informant assessment approach, they frequently address informant discrepancies using techniques that treat discrepancies as measurement error. Yet, recent work indicates that researchers in a variety of fields often may be unable to justify treating informant discrepancies as measurement error. In this review, the authors advance a framework (Operations Triad Model) outlining general principles for using and interpreting informants' reports. Using the framework, researchers can test whether or not they can extract meaningful information about behavior from discrepancies among multiple informants' reports. The authors provide supportive evidence for this framework and discuss its implications for hypothesis testing, study design, and quantitative review.

Journal

Annual Review of Clinical PsychologyAnnual Reviews

Published: Mar 28, 2013

There are no references for this article.