[Allison, P.D. 1987. “Estimation of Linear Models with Incomplete Data.” In Sociological Methodology, edited by C.C. Clogg, 71–103. Washington DC: American Sociological Association. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/271029.10.2307/271029]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Alwin, D.F. 1974. “Approaches to the Interpretation of Relationships in the Multitrait Multimethod Matrix.” Sociological Methodology 5: 79–105. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/270833.10.2307/270833]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Alwin, D.F. 1997. “Feeling Thermometers versus 7-point Scales: Which Are Better?” Sociological Methods and Research 25: 318–340. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197025003003.10.1177/0049124197025003003]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Alwin, D.F. and J.A. Krosnick. 1991. “The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement: The Influence of Question and Respondent Attributes.” Sociological Methods and Research 20: 139–181. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124191020001005.10.1177/0049124191020001005]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Bjørnskov, C. 2010. “How Comparable Are The Gallup World Poll Life Satisfaction Data?” Journal of Happiness Studies 11: 41–60. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9121-6.10.1007/s10902-008-9121-6]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Butts, M.M., R.J. Vandenberg, and L.J. Williams. 2006. “Investigating the Susceptibility of Measurement Invariance Tests: The Effects of Common Method Variance.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2006(1): D1–D6. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPp.2006.27182126.10.5465/AMBPp.2006.27182126]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Byrne, B.M. and D. Watkins. 2003. “The Issue of Measurement Invariance Revisited.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34(2): 155–175. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250225.10.1177/0022022102250225]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Campbell, D.T. and D.W. Fiske. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56(2): 81–105. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016.10.1037/h0046016]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Chen, C.K. 2005. “Construct Model of Knowledge: Based Economy Indicators.” Management Review 24(3): 17–41. Doi: https://doi.org/10.6656/MR.2005.24.3.CHI.17.10.6656/MR.2005.24.3.CHI.17]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Chen, C., S.Y. Lee, and H.W. Stevenson. 1995. “Response Style and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Rating Scales among East Asian and North American Students.” Psychological Science 6: 170–175. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[ESS Round 1: European Social Survey. 2014. ESS-1 2002 Documentation Report. Edition 6.4. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC. Available at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round1/survey/ESS1_data_documentation_report_e06_4.pdf (accessed May 2016).]Search in Google Scholar
[Fu, Y.-C., Y.-H. Chang, S.-H. Tu, and P.-S. Liao. 2016. 2015 Taiwan Social Change Survey (Round 7, Year 1): Globalization, Work, Family, Mental Health, and Political Participation (C00315_2) [Data file]. Available at Survey Research Data Archive, Academia Sinica. Doi: https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00315_1-1.10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00315_1-1]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Goerman, P.L. and R.A. Caspar. 2010. “Managing the Cognitive Pretesting of Multilingual Survey Instruments: A Case Study of Pretesting of the U.S. Census Bureau Bilingual Spanish/English Questionnaire.” In Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts, edited by J. Harkness, et al.: 75–90. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470609927.ch5.10.1002/9780470609927.ch5]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Harzing, A.W. 2006. “Response Styles in Cross-National Survey Research: A 26 Country Study.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6 (2)(August 1): 243–266. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595806066332.10.1177/1470595806066332]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Hsiao, C.-C. and C.-H. Tu. 2012. “Common Method Variance in the Measurement of Teachers’ Creative Teaching.” Psychological Testing 59(4): 609–639. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7108%2fPT.201212.0609.]Search in Google Scholar
[Holbrook, A., Y.K. Cho, and T. Johnson. 2006. “The Impact of Question and Respondent Characteristics on Comprehension and Mapping Difficulties.” Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 565–595. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl027.10.1093/poq/nfl027]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Horn, J.L. and J.J. McArdle. 1992. “A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invariance in Aging Research.” Experimental Aging Research 18(3–4): 117–144. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916.10.1080/036107392082539161459160]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Lau, C.Q. 2016. “Rating Scale Design among Ethiopian Entrepreneurs: A Split-Ballot Experiment.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research edw031. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw031.10.1093/ijpor/edw031]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Liao, P.-S. 2014. “More Happy or Less Unhappy? Comparison of the Balanced and Unbalanced Designs for the Response Scale of General Happiness.” Journal of Happiness Studies 15(6): 1407–1423. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9484-1.10.1007/s10902-013-9484-1]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Marsh, H.W. and B.M. Byrne. 1993. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Multitrait-Multimethod Self-concept Data: Between-group and Within-group Invariance Constraints.” Multivariate Behavior Research 28(3): 313–449. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_2.10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_226776891]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Van Meurs, A. and W.E. Saris. 1990. “Memory Effects in MTMM Studies.” In Evaluations of Measurement Instruments by Metaanalysis of Multitrait-Multimethod Studies, edited by W.E. Saris and A. van Meurs, 134–146. Amsterdam: North Holland.]Search in Google Scholar
[Oberski, D.L., W.E. Saris, and J. Hagenaars. 2007. “Why Are There Differences in Measurement Quality across Countries?” In Measuring Meaningful Data in Social Research, edited by G. Loosveldt and Swyngedouw. Leuven: Acco. Available at: http://daob.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Oberski-Saris-Why-are-there-differencesin-measurement-quality-across-countries.pdf (accessed January 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Oberski, D., W.E. Saris, and J.A. Hagenaars. 2010. “Categorization Errors and Differences in the Quality of Questions in Comparative Surveys.” In Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts, edited by J. Harkness, et al.: 435–453. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470609927.ch23.10.1002/9780470609927.ch23]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Pan, Y., B. Craig, and S. Scollon. 2005. “Results from Chinese Cognitive Interviews on the Census 2000 Long Form: Language, Literacy, and Cultural Issues.” Statistical Research Division’s Research Report Series (Survey Methodology 2005 – 09). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Available at https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rsm2005-09.pdf (accessed November 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Petersen, T. 2008. “Spilt Ballot as An Experimental Approach to Public Opinion Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research, edited by W. Donsbach and M.W. Traugott, 322–329. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Available at: http://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-hdbk-public-opinion-research/n30.xml (accessed January 2019).10.4135/9781848607910.n30]Search in Google Scholar
[Revilla, M. 2015. “Comparison of the Quality Estimates in a Mixed-Mode and a Unimode Design: An Experiment from the European Social Survey.” Quality and Quantity 49(3): 1219–1238. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0044-5.10.1007/s11135-014-0044-5]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Revilla, M. and W.E. Saris. 2013. “The Split-Ballot Multitrait-Multimethod Approach: Implementation and Problems.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 20: 27–46. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742379.10.1080/10705511.2013.742379]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Revilla, M., W.E. Saris, G. Loewe, and C. Ochoa. 2015. “Can a Non-Probabilistic Online Panel Get Similar Question Quality as the ESS?” International Journal of Market Research 57(3): 395–412. Available at: https://www.mrs.org.uk/ijmr_article/article/104501 (accessed January 2019).10.2501/IJMR-2015-034]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E. and F.M. Andrews. 1991. “Evaluation of Measurement Instruments Using a Structural Modeling Approach.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P.P. Biemer, et al.: 575–597. New York, NY: Wiley.10.1002/9781118150382.ch28]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E. and I.N. Gallhofer. 2007. “Estimation of the Effects of Measurement Characteristics on the Quality of Survey Questions.” Survey Research Methods 1: 29–43. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18148/srm/2007.v1i1.49.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E. and I.N. Gallhofer. 2014. Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9781118634646]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E., A. Satorra, and G. Coenders. 2004. “A New Approach to Evaluating the Quality of Measurement Instruments: The Split-Ballot MTMM Design.” Sociological Methodology 34: 311–347. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00155.x.10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00155.x]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E., A. Satorra, and W.M. van der Veld. 2009. “Testing Structural Equation Models or Detection of Misspecifications?” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 16(4): 561–582. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433.10.1080/10705510903203433]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E., R. Veenhoven, A.C. Scherpenzeel, and B. Brunting. 2008. A Comparative Study of Satisfaction with Life in Europe. Budapest: Eötvös University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W.E., M. Revilla, J.A. Krosnick, and E.M. Shaffer. 2010. “Comparing Questions with Agree/Disagree Response Options to Questions with Item-Specific Response Options.” Survey Research Methods 4: 61–79. Doi: https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2010.v4i1.2682.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saris, W., D. Oberski, M. Revilla, D. Zavala, L. Lilleoja, I. Gallhofer, and T. Gruner. 2011. “The Development of the Program SQP 2.0 for the Prediction of the Quality of Survey Questions.” RECSM Working Paper 24, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Available at: https://www.upf.edu/documents/3966940/3986764/RECSM_wp024.pdf (accessed January 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Satorra, A. 1993. “Asymptotic Robust Inferences in Multi-sample Analysis of Augmented Moment Matrices.” In Multivariate Analysis; Future Directions, edited by R. Rao and C.M. Cuadras, 211–229. Amsterdam, North Holland.10.1016/B978-0-444-81531-6.50018-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Schaeffer, N.C. and S. Presser. 2003. “The Science of Asking Questions.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 65–88. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112.10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Schuman, H. and S. Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van der Veld, W., W.E. Saris, and A. Satorra. 2008. Jrule 2.0: User Manual, Unpublished document.]Search in Google Scholar
[Weng, L-J. 2004. “Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest Reliability.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 64: 956–972. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674.10.1177/0013164404268674]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Wu, C-E. and Y-T. Lin. 2013. “Cross-Strait Economic Openness, Identity, and Vote Choice: An Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.” Journal of Electoral Studies 20(2): 1–36. Doi: https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2013.20.02.01-35.10.6612/tjes.2013.20.02.01-35]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Zavala-Rojas, D., R. Tormos, W. Weber, and M. Revilla. 2018. “Designing Response Scales with Multi-Trait-Multi-Method Experiments.” Mathematical Population Studies 25(2): 66–81. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2018.1439241.10.1080/08898480.2018.1439241]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar