{"id":1999,"slug":"lelkes-weiss-2015-skeptical-counter","title":"Lelkes & Weiss 2015 — skeptical counter: item-specific no better on criterion validity","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["survey-question-design"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Lelkes & Weiss (2015, *Research & Politics*, \"Much ado about acquiescence\"), using two ANES waves (n ≈ 5,900), found construct-specific questions were **no better** than agree/disagree on:\n\n- Test-retest reliability — both averaged polychoric r = 0.63.\n- Criterion validity — differences -0.02 to -0.05, confidence intervals overlapping.\n- Even among acquiescence-prone respondents (low verbal ability, high agreeableness, face-to-face mode).\n\nTheir conclusion: construct-specific format \"should not be considered a canonical solution.\"\n\n**Source:** Lelkes & Weiss 2015, R&P. Important skeptical counterpoint.\n\n**Confidence:** Verified — and reconciles with Saris 2010 via different facets: Saris measured CONVERGENT validity (MTMM), Lelkes & Weiss measured CRITERION validity.\n\n**Honest concession for Candid:** Rewriting questions from agree/disagree to item-specific helps measurement quality but is not magic. The bigger win is converting JUDGMENTS to OBSERVATIONS entirely ([[rule-r1-convert-judgment-to-observation]]).","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[],"incoming":[{"slug":"research-brief-smb-widget-capture-layer-june-2026","title":"Research brief: SMB widget capture layer — what owners can vs cannot self-report (June 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"rule-r2-no-agree-disagree","title":"R2 — Never use agree/disagree statements in the widget","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}]},"created_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:00.933Z","updated_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:00.933Z"}