Abnormal Psychology

Researching Abnormality 171

aspects of a patient’s behavior, and they may

have their own views as to the causes of the

patient’s behavior (Achenbach, 2008; Kirk

& Hsieh, 2004). For example, when assess-

ing children, clinicians usually rely heavily

on reports from others, such as parents and

teachers; however, these individuals often do

not agree on the nature or cause of a child’s

problems (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2004).

In addition, some people, because of their

level of intelligence, attention span, or life ex-

periences, misunderstand the intent of ques-

tions on a questionnaire or in an interview. For

instance, the question “What have you done

today?” could refer to what important activi-

ties were accomplished (e.g., writing a paper or giving a presentation), or it could

have a more literal meaning—“Tell me everything you’ve done today,” including

taking a shower and dressing (Schwarz, 1999). Responses to different meanings of

a question will affect the data. One advantage of an interview is that the clinician

can rephrase a question if the patient responds in a way that reveals that he or she

misunderstood the intended meaning.

Research Challenges with Questionnaires

In psychopathology research, questionnaires are a relatively inexpensive way to collect

a lot of data quickly. However, questionnaires must be designed carefully in order to

avoid various biases. For example, one sort of bias arises when a range of alternative

responses are presented. Some questionnaires provide only two choices in response

to an item (“yes” or “no”), whereas other questionnaires give participants more than

two choices, such as “all the time,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” “infrequently,” or

“never.” With more choices comes more opportunities for bias: Twice a week might

be interpreted as frequent by one person and infrequent by another. Moreover, the

way the scale is defi ned is important. An example of this type of problem arose when

people were asked to rate how successful they have been in life; simply changing

the numeric values of the end points on the scale changed people’s responses. When

asked to respond on a rating scale with numbers from –5 to +5, like this:

not at all

successful

extremely

successful

–5 +5

34% reported having been highly successful in life. When asked to respond on a

scale with numbers from 0 to 10, like this:

not at all

successful

extremely

successful

0 + 10

only 13% reported having been highly successful in life (Schwarz, Knäuper, Hippler,

Noelle-Neumann, & Clark, 1991). To reduce the subjective aspect of rating scales,

some questionnaires, such as the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (Foa et al., 1997),

defi ne the frequency choices in terms of specifi c numerical values (such as having

“frequently” defi ned as three times a week).

In addition, response bias is a major problem to avoid when designing question-

naires.Response bias refers to a tendency to respond in a particular way, regardless

of what is being asked by the questions. For instance, some people, and members of

some cultures in general, are more likely to check off “agree” than “disagree,”

5.4 • How the Question Is

Asked Affects the Answer

Patients may respond differently to a

question, depending on whether it is

part of a questionnaire or asked by an

interviewer (Dell’Osso et al., 2002).

Response bias

The tendency to respond in a particular way,

regardless of what is being asked by the

question.

Figure 5.4

54 H th Q ti I