Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aiken, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by West, S. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Aiken, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by West, S. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 374-390 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9001400403

Invalidity of True Experiments

Self-Report Pretest Biases

Leona S. Aiken

Arizona State University

Stephen G. West

Arizona State University

The validity of true experiments is threatened by a class of self-report biases that affect all respondents at pretest but which are diminished by treatment, yielding noncomparable treated and control subjects at posttest. These biases include inaccurate self-evaluations due to (a) lack of understanding of dimensions of self-rating, (b) unconscious needs to rationalize sources of severe emotional distress, (c) distressed or altered states (e.g., drug states) that lower the ability to report accurately, and (d) deliberate impression management in service of accessing desired treatment. They are detectable via external criteria, special conditions of measurement, and retrospective pretests, and may be lessened in several ways. Unchecked, they produce treatment by self-report bias interactions that undermine the validity of even true experiments.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Journal of EvaluationHome page
L. G. Hill and D. L. Betz
Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest
American Journal of Evaluation, December 1, 2005; 26(4): 501 - 517.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Health PsycholHome page
C. J. Treloar, N. Higginbotham, J. Malcolm, D. Sutherland, and S. Berenger
An 'Academic Detailing' Intervention To Decrease Exposure to HIV Infection among Health-care Workers
J Health Psychol, October 1, 1996; 1(4): 455 - 468.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
R. G. Orwin, L. J. Sonnefeld, R. Garrison-Mogren, and N. G. Smith
Pitfalls in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Case Management Programs for Homeless Persons: Lessons From the NIAAA Community Demonstration Program
Eval Rev, April 1, 1994; 18(2): 153 - 207.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
R. J. Long
The Impact of New Office Information Technology on Job Quality of Female and Male Employees
Human Relations, August 1, 1993; 46(8): 939 - 961.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
K. M. Skeff, G. A. Stratos, and M. R. Bergen
Evaluation of a Medical Faculty Development Program: A Comparison of Traditional Pre/Post and Retrospective Pre/Post Self-Assessment Ratings
Eval Health Prof, September 1, 1992; 15(3): 350 - 366.
[Abstract] [PDF]