In the literature, various indicators such as straightlining and acquiescence have been proposed to detect non-optimal response behavior and assess the quality of survey data. One of the key challenges in effectively using and interpreting these indicators is the inconsistency in terminology, theoretical concepts, and methods for constructing them. While survey methodology literature predominantly examines these indicators within the framework of satisficing theory (Krosnick, 1991, 1999), psychological research draws on the concept of response styles (Paulhus, 1991). These concepts partly overlap in their theoretical assumptions, however, are defined differently and assume different underlying cognitive processes. Yet, researchers frequently use them interchangeably and imprecisely, both within and across disciplines. This general lack of clarity hinders the comparability of studies and utility of these indicators to assess the quality of responses. To address this issue, we conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary systematic review of empirical studies published since 2010 on response quality indicators. We provide a structured overview of how researchers measure and conceptualize different response quality indicators and document how these indicators vary as a function of personal, situational, instrument-related characteristics. Our review will allow us to address key questions about the theoretical relationships between these indicators: Can findings related to one indicator be generalized to others? Do the different indicators reflect the same underlying construct, or are they influenced by different factors? A particular strength of our review is that we widely search for evidence across different strands of literature, rather than focusing on either satisficing theory or response styles, which have been the subject of previous reviews (Roberts et al., 2019; Van Vaerenbergh & Thomas, 2013). By doing so, we aim to leverage insights from different research areas to gain a better conceptual understanding of these indicators and to inform researchers on how to properly measure and apply them.
