Below, we develop several new items for need for privacy. To validate items, we follow the procedure implemented by Patalay, Hayes, and Wolpert (2018) and calculate the following four reading scores: Flesch–Kincaid reading grade (FK), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and the Powers-Sumner-Kearl Variation of the Dale and Chall Readability formula (DC).
To have a benchmark, we calculated the readability of the HEXACO items. It was as follows:
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability was good. The results means that, on average, understanding the items requires seven years of schooling.
Frener, Wagner, and Trepte (2021)
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 6.78 8.67 7.31 6.47 7.31
## 2 text2 4.92 6.80 3.90 4.96 5.15
## 3 text3 4.82 4.80 7.70 6.87 6.05
## 4 text4 5.04 5.60 4.35 5.75 5.18
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability looks good!
Frener, Wagner, and Trepte (2021)
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 1.57 4.40 3.425 4.97 3.59
## 2 text2 1.57 4.40 1.822 6.02 3.45
## 3 text3 2.85 6.00 0.651 5.70 3.80
## 4 text4 8.37 12.00 8.288 6.17 8.71
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.928 5.65 6.98
Looks good. (Item 4 not perfect, but it should still work.)
Dienlin and Metzger (2019)
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 13.45 18.00 12.71 7.92 13.02
## 2 text2 12.45 16.27 10.65 6.62 11.50
## 3 text3 15.69 20.53 16.20 9.47 15.47
## 4 text4 8.01 15.31 8.24 6.02 9.39
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Items 1, 2 and 3 show rather high scores. Try to formulate easier.
New items:
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 11.50 16.67 13.19 7.24 12.15
## 2 text2 10.58 12.21 8.55 6.17 9.38
## 3 text3 13.07 19.33 14.76 8.01 13.80
## 4 text4 8.01 15.31 8.24 6.02 9.39
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
A bit better, but not much. But scale worked pretty well in original study, so should be okay.
New, self-designed.
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 7.82 11.64 7.38 6.91 8.44
## 2 text2 8.33 12.21 4.07 6.17 7.70
## 3 text3 12.41 18.31 10.98 6.91 12.15
## 4 text4 6.01 12.00 5.35 5.02 7.09
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Items 3 seems to be a bit too difficult. Try to make easier.
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 7.82 11.64 7.38 6.91 8.44
## 2 text2 8.33 12.21 4.07 6.17 7.70
## 3 text3 8.35 11.40 8.81 6.39 8.74
## 4 text4 6.01 12.00 5.35 5.02 7.09
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability now much better.
Frener, Wagner, and Trepte (2021)
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 3.65 3.60 4.43 5.09 4.19
## 2 text2 9.55 16.00 8.29 8.48 10.58
## 3 text3 9.74 14.80 11.13 5.91 10.40
## 4 text4 11.26 14.43 10.87 6.71 10.82
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability looks good.
Dienlin and Metzger (2019)
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 7.61 8.90 7.34 8.55 8.10
## 2 text2 7.19 12.00 7.11 7.33 8.41
## 3 text3 7.97 9.71 4.92 7.44 7.51
## 4 text4 8.37 12.00 5.35 7.33 8.26
## 5 HEXACO 6.63 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability looks good.
New, self-designed.
## document Flesch.Kincaid FOG Coleman.Liau.short Dale.Chall.PSK average
## 1 text1 2.483 9.07 -3.09 5.55 3.50
## 2 text2 8.383 15.73 4.75 5.55 8.60
## 3 text3 4.791 8.04 1.82 4.97 4.91
## 4 text4 0.805 3.20 -1.86 3.74 1.47
## 5 HEXACO 6.629 8.72 6.93 5.65 6.98
Readability was good.
Social Privacy
Dienlin and Metzger (2019)
Readability looks good. (Item 1 not perfect, but should still work and was already validated.)