Employers commonly use cognitive ability tests in the personnel selection process. Although ability tests are excellent predictors of job performance, their validity may be compromised when test takers engage in careless responding. It is thus important for researchers to have access to effective careless responding measures, which allow researchers to screen for careless responding and to evaluate efforts to prevent careless responding. Previous research has primarily used two types of measures to assess careless responding to ability tests—response time and self-reported carelessness. In the current paper, we expand the careless responding assessment toolbox by examining the construct validity of four additional measures: (1) infrequency, (2) instructed-response, (3) long-string, and (4) intra-individual response variability (IRV) indices. Expanding the available set of careless responding indices is important because the strengths of new indices may offset the weaknesses of existing indices and would allow researchers to better assess heterogeneous careless response behaviors. Across three datasets ( N = 1,193), we found strong support for the validity of the response-time and infrequency indices, and moderate support for the validity of the instructed-response and IRV indices.

中文翻译：

---

构建更大的工具箱：现有和拟议的粗心应对认知能力测试措施的构造有效性

雇主通常在人员选拔过程中使用认知能力测试。尽管能力测试可以很好地预测工作表现，但当应试者做出粗心的回答时，其有效性可能会受到影响。因此，研究人员能够获得有效的粗心响应措施非常重要，这使得研究人员能够筛选粗心响应并评估防止粗心响应的努力。先前的研究主要使用两种类型的措施来评估对能力测试的粗心响应——响应时间和自我报告的粗心。在本文中，我们通过检查四个附加措施的构造有效性来扩展粗心响应评估工具箱：（1）不频繁，（2）指示响应，（3）长串，以及（4）个体内响应变异性(IRV) 指数。扩大可用的粗心响应指数集非常重要，因为新指数的优势可能会抵消现有指数的弱点，并使研究人员能够更好地评估异质的粗心响应行为。在三个数据集 (N = 1,193) 中，我们发现对响应时间和不频繁指数的有效性的强烈支持，对指导响应和 IRV 指数的有效性的适度支持。