Adjectives vs. Statements in Forced Choice and Likert Item Types: Which Is More Resistant to Impression Management in Personality Assessment?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Kate E. Walton ◽  
Justine Radunzel ◽  
Raeal Moore ◽  
Jeremy Burrus ◽  
Cristina Anguiano-Carrasco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Item Types

Effects of Targeted Self-Coaching on Applicant Distortion of Personality Measures

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Sliter ◽  
Neil D. Christiansen
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Lie Detection ◽  
Personality Test ◽  
Personality Measures ◽  
Personality Tests ◽  
The Impact

The present study evaluated the impact of reading self-coaching book excerpts on success at faking a personality test. Participants (N = 207) completed an initial honest personality assessment and a subsequent assessment with faking instructions under one of the following self-coaching conditions: no coaching, chapters from a commercial book on how to fake preemployment personality scales, and personality coaching plus a chapter on avoiding lie-detection scales. Results showed that those receiving coaching materials had greater success in raising their personality scores, primarily on the traits that had been targeted in the chapters. In addition, those who read the chapter on avoiding lie-detection scales scored significantly lower on a popular impression management scale while simultaneously increasing their personality scores. Implications for the use of personality tests in personnel selection are discussed.

Reliability Estimates for IRT-Based Forced-Choice Assessment Scores

2021 ◽  
pp. 109442812199908
Author(s):  
Yin Lin
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Reliability Estimation ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Personnel Decisions ◽  
Assessment Scores ◽  
Reliability Estimates ◽  
Different Types

Forced-choice (FC) assessments of noncognitive psychological constructs (e.g., personality, behavioral tendencies) are popular in high-stakes organizational testing scenarios (e.g., informing hiring decisions) due to their enhanced resistance against response distortions (e.g., faking good, impression management). The measurement precisions of FC assessment scores used to inform personnel decisions are of paramount importance in practice. Different types of reliability estimates are reported for FC assessment scores in current publications, while consensus on best practices appears to be lacking. In order to provide understanding and structure around the reporting of FC reliability, this study systematically examined different types of reliability estimation methods for Thurstonian IRT-based FC assessment scores: their theoretical differences were discussed, and their numerical differences were illustrated through a series of simulations and empirical studies. In doing so, this study provides a practical guide for appraising different reliability estimation methods for IRT-based FC assessment scores.

Forced-Choice vs Free-Response in Personality Assessment

1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Merenda ◽  
Walter V. Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Self Concept ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Psychological Measurement ◽  
Free Response ◽  
Relative Validity ◽  
General Consensus ◽  
Choice Method ◽  
Statistical Results

Two self-rating adjective check lists (ACL) were administered to 44 students in a course on psychological measurement. The first ACL administered was the regular free response list, followed immediately with a forced-choice version in which the adjectives were arranged into tetrad sets. Ipsative scoring was used and profiles compared. The correlations between the profiles ranged from −1.00 to 1.00, more than 40% falling in the negative range. Ss gave their impressions and reactions to both inventories, and evaluated the relative validity of the results. A majority favored the free-response technique and felt that it would yield a more accurate description of their self-concepts and personality structures. General consensus was that the forced-choice instructions led to frustration, increased irritability, and decreased motivation. Ss felt that the free-response instrument presented a more relaxing situation and was even enjoyable to take. Ss' verbal reactions were consistent with the statistical results. The findings suggest that the forced-choice method is likely to be inappropriate for use with adjective check lists in self-concept assessment and analysis, and may lead not only to distortion in the personality profiles, but also to reversals.

Convergence of Self-Reports and Informant Reports on the Personality Assessment Screener

Assessment ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 999-1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon E. Kelley ◽  
John F. Edens ◽  
Leslie C. Morey
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dyadic Relationship ◽  
Informant Report ◽  
Positive Impression Management ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Psychological Difficulties ◽  
Internalizing Distress ◽  
Report Measure

The present study is the first to investigate the Personality Assessment Screener, a brief self-report measure of risk for emotional and behavioral dysfunction, in relation to the informant report version of this instrument, the Personality Assessment Screener–Other. Among a sample of undergraduate roommate dyads ( N = 174), self-report and informant report total scores on the Personality Assessment Screener/Personality Assessment Screener–Other moderately converged ( r = 0.45), with generally greater agreement between perspectives observed for externalizing behaviors compared with internalizing distress. In addition, selves tended to report more psychological difficulties relative to informant ratings ( d = 0.45) with an average absolute discrepancy between sources of 6.31 ( SD = 4.96) out of a possible range of 66. Discrepancies between self-report and informant report were significantly associated with characteristics of the dyadic relationship (e.g., length of acquaintanceship) as well as the severity of self-reported psychological difficulties and positive impression management.

scholarly journals Faking and the Validity of Personality Tests: An Experimental Investigation Using Modern Forced Choice Measures

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Huber ◽  
Nathan Kuncel ◽  
Katie Huber ◽  
Anthony Boyce
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Impression Management ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Personality Tests ◽  
Likert Scales ◽  
Experimental Control ◽  
Applicant Faking ◽  
Fake Good

Despite the established validity of personality measures for personnel selection, their susceptibility to faking has been a persistent concern. However, the lack of studies that combine generalizability with experimental control makes it difficult to determine the effects of applicant faking. This study addressed this deficit in two ways. First, we compared a subtle incentive to fake with the explicit “fake-good” instructions used in most faking experiments. Second, we compared standard Likert scales to multidimensional forced choice (MFC) scales designed to resist deception, including more and less fakable versions of the same MFC inventory. MFC scales substantially reduced motivated score elevation but also appeared to elicit selective faking on work-relevant dimensions. Despite reducing the effectiveness of impression management attempts, MFC scales did not retain more validity than Likert scales when participants faked. However, results suggested that faking artificially bolstered the criterion-related validity of Likert scales while diminishing their construct validity.

The influence of impression management scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory in the epilepsy monitoring unit

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine L. Purdom ◽  
Kristin A. Kirlin ◽  
Matthew T. Hoerth ◽  
Katherine H. Noe ◽  
Joseph F. Drazkowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Personality Assessment Inventory ◽  
Epilepsy Monitoring

A Forced-Choice Adjective Preference Scale for Personality Assessment

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas N. Jackson ◽  
Henry L. Minton
Keyword(s):  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Paired Comparison ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Check List ◽  
Preference Scale ◽  
Response Set

With the aim of investigating a forced-choice format for studying selected personality check-list variables as a means of overcoming response set variance encountered in other adjective check lists, 17 bipolar scales were defined, and items comprising a sample of the items thought to represent the item universe of each scale were accumulated. From these samples of items, 20 were selected to represent each of the 17 scales, 10 from each extreme. Opposing trait-names were paired randomly to form 17 scales each consisting of 10 forced-choice items. The Adjective Preference Scale was administered to two groups of Ss. Reliabilities and intercorrelations were computed. Intercorrelations were found to be generally low in relation to scale reliabilities, which were considered promising for 10-item scales. Because of the effects of the forced-choice format in enhancing content reliability and in eliminating the massive response set to check many or few items, it is concluded that combining items into scales and casting them into a paired-comparison context is the method of choice in constructing adjective check-lists for personality assessment.

Detection of Feigning of Different Symptom Presentations With the PAI and IOP-29

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110612
Author(s):  
Claudia Pignolo ◽  
Luciano Giromini ◽  
Francesca Ales ◽  
Alessandro Zennaro
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Diagnostic Efficiency ◽  
Symptom Presentation ◽  
Total N ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Inventory Of Problems ◽  
Data Source ◽  
Negative Impression ◽  
Forensic Sample

This study examined the effectiveness of the negative distortion measures from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29), by investigating data from a community and a forensic sample, across three different symptom presentations (i.e., feigned depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], and schizophrenia). The final sample consisted of 513 community-based individuals and 288 inmates (total N = 801); all were administered the PAI and the IOP-29 in an honest or feigning conditions. Statistical analyses compared the average scores of each measure by symptom presentation and data source (i.e., community vs. forensic sample) and evaluated diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that the PAI Negative Impression Management scale and the IOP-29 are the most effective measures across all symptom presentations, whereas the PAI Malingering Index and Rogers Discriminant Function generated less optimal results, especially when considering feigned PTSD. Practical implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document