Self-Report Questionnaires

Introduction

Self-report questionnaires are among the most widely used methods of psychological measurement. This popularity is a result of many advantages that self-reports hold over alternative assessment methods. Most notably, the technique is very time-efficient for the researcher or professional; time spent on administration and scoring is typically minimal, yet a large amount of information can be obtained. Furthermore, the technique lends itself to high quality standardization. With objective scoring procedures, responses can be compared with high reliability to various large samples of interest, a normative comparison facilitated by the efficiency of the data collection. Finally, self-report offers an opportunity to directly measure the phenomenology or subjective experience of the respondent. For most constructs, subjective experience is [Page 867]a critical part of the concept; it is difficult to imagine how someone could be given psychological descriptors such as ‘unhappy’ or ‘obsessive’ without a glimpse into their personal experience. Self-report provides an objective, standardized method for capturing these experiences (in contrast to unstructured approaches such as interviews or free associations), while less direct assessment techniques (such as projective, observational, or psychophysiological methods) can at best only allow inferences about phenomenology. Thus, self-report holds a vital place in the assessment of virtually any construct in personality and psychopathology.

However, there have also been concerns expressed over the accuracy of self-reported information as an indication of psychological status. One source of distortion may arise from efforts to deceive the recipient of the information; for example, examinees may attempt to appear either better adjusted or more poorly adjusted than is actually the case. A second source may arise from limited insight or self-deception; examinees may genuinely believe that they are doing quite well or quite poorly, but this belief might be at odds with the impression of objective observers. A third source of distortion can also arise from carelessness, confusion, or indifference in taking a test; examinees who answer questions with little reflection (or even randomly) may yield results that do not accurately mirror their experiences. Because of these threats to validity of self-reported information, a number of procedures and strategies (discussed elsewhere in this volume) for identifying such distortion and understanding its effects have been developed.

Conceptual Approaches to Questionnaire Construction