Comparing Response Distortion of Forced-choice and Rating Scale Format on Big Five - Factor Personality Scales in Selection Situation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objectives of this quasi-experiment research were to compare response distortion of forced-choice and rating scale formats on Big Five-Factor personality scales in selection situations. The research instruments used in collecting the data were the forced-choice and the 5-point rating scale versions of Big Five-Factor personality scale, which contained 50 and 100 items respectively, with reliability and validity evidence. The sample consisted of 100 undergraduate students, obtained by multistage cluster sampling. The findings indicated that the forced-choice response format was better at reducing the answer change rates, test-score inflation rates, rank order changes, and selection result changes, in comparison to the rating scale response format, with statistical significance. Nevertheless, the forced-choice response format could not completely eliminate the test-taker’s influence of response distortion in selection situation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The content and information contained in the published article in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University represent the opinions and responsibilities of the authors directly. The editorial board of the journal is not necessarily in agreement with or responsible for any of the content.
The articles, data, content, images, etc. that have been published in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University are copyrighted by the journal. If any individual or organization wishes to reproduce or perform any actions involving the entirety or any part of the content, they must obtain written permission from the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and assessment, 9(1‐2), 9-30.
Cao, M. (2016). Examining the fakability of forced-choice individual differences measures [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359.
Cheung, M. W.L., & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 55-77.
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering Forced-Choice Item Formats for Applicant Personality Assessment. Human Performance, 18(3), 267–307.
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 9–24.
Hontangas, P. D., Torre, J. D., Ponsoda, V., Leenen, I., Morillo, D., & Abad, F. J. (2015). Comparing traditional and IRT scoring of forced-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(8), 598-612.
Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13(4), 371–388.
Khorramdel, L. (2014). The influence of different rating scales on impression management in high stakes assessment. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56(2), 154–167.
Martin, B. A., Bowen, C.-C., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires? Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 247–256.
Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348–355.
Satoshi Usami, A. Sakamoto, J. Naito, Y. abe. (2016). Developing Pairwise Preference-Based Personality Test and Experimental Investigation of Its Resistance to Faking Effect by item response model. International Journal of testing, 16, 288-309.
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Tauriz, G. (2015). The validity of ipsative and quasi‐ipsative forced‐choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 797–834.
Sjoberg, L. (2015). Correction for faking in self-report personality tests. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 56(5), 582-591.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., & Drasgow, F. (2005). An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: An application to the problem of faking in personality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 184- 201.
Stark, S. Chernyshenko, F. & Drasgow, A. White. (2012). Adaptive Testing with Multidimensional Pairwise Preference Items: Improving the efficiency of personality and other noncognitive assessment. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 463-487.
Office of the Education Council. (2020). State of specialized education management in Thailand 2017-2018: Personnel production. Prikwarn Graphic. (in Thai)