Faking effects on the factor structure of a quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventory

  1. Alexandra Martínez 1
  2. Silvia Moscoso 1
  3. Mario Lado 1
  1. 1 University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Revista:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Ano de publicación: 2021

Volume: 37

Número: 1

Páxinas: 1-10

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.5093/JWOP2021A7 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

Research has shown that faking behavior affects the factor structure of single-stimulus (SS) personality measures. However, no published research has analyzed the effects of this phenomenon on the factor structure of forced-choice (FC) personality inventories. This study examines the effects of faking, induced in a laboratory setting, on the construct validity of a quasi-ipsative FC personality inventory based on the Five-Factor Model. It also examines the moderator effect of the type of experimental design (between-subject and within-subject design) on factor analyses. The results showed that (a) data fit to a structure of five-factors in the two conditions (honest and faking) in both experimental designs; (b) model fit indices are also good or excellent in all cases; and (c) Burt-Tucker’s congruence coefficients between convergent factors of conditions analyzed are very high. These findings provide evidence that the quasi-ipsative FC format is a robust instrument that controls the effects of faking on factor structure. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings for personnel selection and assessment.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adair, C.. (2014). Interventions for addressing faking on personality Assessments for employee selection: A meta-analysis. DePaul University.
  • Alonso, P,Moscoso, S,Cuadrado, D.. (2015). Procedimientos de selección de personal en pequeñas y medianas empresas españolas. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 31. 79-89
  • Baron, H.. (1996). Strengths and limitation of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 69. 49-56
  • 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. 9-30
  • Bartram, D.. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 69. 25-39
  • Bartram, D.. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90. 1185
  • Bartram, D.. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 15. 263
  • Birkeland, S. A,Manson, T. M,Kisamore, J. L,Brannick, M. T,Smith, M. A.. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 14. 317
  • Borislow, B.. (1958). The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and fakability. Journal of Applied Psychology. 42. 22
  • Brown, A,Maydeu-Olivares, A.. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 71. 460-502
  • Brown, A,Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods. 18. 36-52
  • Cao, M,Drasgow, F.. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 104. 1347
  • Cattell, R. B,Brennan, J.. (1994). Finding personality structure when ipsative measurements are the unavoidable basis of the variables. American Journal of Psychology. 107. 261
  • Cellar, D. F,Miller, M. L,Doverspike, D. D,Klawsky, J. D.. (1996). Comparison of factor structures and criterion-related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81. 694-704
  • Christiansen, N. D,Burns, G. N,Montgomery, G. E.. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance. 18. 267-307
  • Clemans, W. V.. (1966). An analytical and empirical examination of some properties of ipsative measures. Psychometric Monographs. 14. 1-56
  • Converse, P. D,Oswald, F. L,Imus, A,Hedricks, C,Roy, R,Butera, H.. (2006). A closer examination of applicant faking behavior. Information Age.
  • Costa Jr, P. T,McCrae, R. R.. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences. 13. 653
  • Cuadrado, D,Salgado, J. F,Moscoso, S.. (2020). Individual differences and counterproductive academic behaviors in high school. Plos One. 15.
  • Cuadrado, D,Salgado, J. F,Moscoso, S.. (2021). Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120. 504
  • Delgado-Rodríguez, N,Hernández-Fernaud, E,Rosales, C,Díaz-Vilela, L,Isla-Díaz, R,Díaz-Cabrera, D.. (2018). Contextual performance in academic settings: The role of personality, self-efficacy, and impression management. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 34. 63
  • Dilchert, S,Ones, D. S.. (2012). Managing HR for environmental sustainability. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
  • Ellingson, J. E,Sackett, P. R,Hough, L. M.. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84. 155
  • Ellingson, J. E,Smith, D. B,Sackett, P. R.. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86. 122
  • Ferrando, P. J,Anguiano-Carrasco, C.. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo. 31. 18-33
  • Ferrando, P. J,Lorenzo-Seva, U.. (2014). Exploratory item factor analysis: Additional considerations. Anales de Psicología. 30. 1170
  • García-Izquierdo, A. L,Aguado, D,Ponsoda-Gil, V.. (2019). New insights on technology and assessment: Introduction to JWOP special issue. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 35. 49-52
  • García-Izquierdo, A. L,Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J,Lubiano, M. A.. (2020). Developing biodata for public manager selection purposes: A comparison between fuzzy logic and traditional methods. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 36. 231
  • Goldberg, L. R.. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment. 4. 26-42
  • Golubovich, J,Lake, C. J,Anguiano-Carrasco, C,Seybert, J.. (2020). Measuring achievement striving via a situational judgment test: The value of additional context. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 36. 157
  • Gordon, L. V.. (1951). Validities of the forced-choice and inventory methods of personality measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology. 35. 407
  • Griffith, R. L,McDaniel, M.. (2006). A closer examination of applicant faking behavior. Information Age.
  • Heller, M.. (2005). Court ruling that employer’s integrity test violated ADA could open door to litigation. Workforce Management. 84. 74
  • Hicks, L. E.. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin. 74. 167
  • Hooper, A. C.. (2007). Self-presentation on personality measures in lab and field settings: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota.
  • Horn, J. L.. (1971). Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Tand McNally.
  • 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. 371
  • Jiang, G,Mai, Y,Yuan, K. H.. (2017). Advances in measurement invariance and mean comparison of latent variables: Equivalence testing and a projection-based approach. Frontiers in Psychology. 8. 1823
  • Jöreskog, K,Sörbom, D.. (1998). LISREL.
  • Joubert, T,Inceoglu, I,Bartram, D,Dowdeswell, K,Lin, Y.. (2015). A comparison of the psychometric properties of the forced choice and Likert scale versions of a personality instrument. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 23. 92
  • Judge, T. A,Rodell, J. B,Klinger, R. L,Simon, L. S,Crawford, E. R.. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology. 98. 875-925
  • Lado, M,Alonso, P.. (2017). The Five-Factor model and job performance in low complexity jobs: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 33. 175
  • Lee, P,Joo, S.-H.. (2019). Examining of stability of personality profile solutions between like-type and multidimensional forced choice measure. Personality and Individual Differences. 142. 13-20
  • Lee, P,Lee, S,Stark, S.. (2018). Examining validity evidence for multidimensional forced choice measures with different scoring approaches. Personality and Individual Differences. 123. 229
  • Lorenzo-Seva, U,Ferrando, P. J.. (2018). FACTOR. Universidad Rovira i Virgili.
  • Marshall, M. B,De Fruyt, F,Rolland, J. P,Bagby, R. M.. (2005). Socially desirable responding and the factorial stability of the NEO PI-R. Psychological Assessment. 17. 379
  • Martínez, A.. (2019). Evaluación empírica de un modelo teórico de los efectos del faking sobre las medidas de personalidad ocupacional. University of Santiago de Compostela.
  • McFarland, L. A,Ryan, A. M.. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85. 812
  • Meade, A.W.. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 77. 531
  • Michaelis, W,Eysenck, H. J.. (1971). The determination of personality inventory factor patterns and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 118. 223
  • (2016). Millisecond Inquisit. Millisecond Software.
  • Millsap, R. E.. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
  • Morillo, D,Abad, F. J,Kreitchmann, R. S,Leenen, I,Hontangas, P,Ponsoda, V.. (2019). The journey from Likert to forced-choice questionnaires: Evidence of the invariance of item parameters. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 35. 75-83
  • Nguyen, N. T,McDaniel, M. A.. (2000). Brain size and intelligence: A meta-analysis. First Annual Conference of the International Society of Intelligence Research. Cleveland, OH, United States.
  • Otero, I,Cuadrado, D,Martínez, A.. (2020). Convergent and predictive validity of the Big Five factors assessed with single stimulus and quasi-ipsative questionnaires. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 36. 215
  • Paulhus, D. L.. (2002). The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Pauls, C. A,Crost, N. W.. (2005). Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences. 39. 297-308
  • Poropat, A. E.. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin. 135. 322
  • Rosse, J. G,Stecher, M. D,Miller, J. L,Levin, R. A.. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83. 634
  • Rothstein, M. G,Goffin, R. D.. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support?. Human Resource Management Review. 16. 155
  • Sackett, P. R,Lievens, F,Van Iddekinge, C. H,Kuncel, N. R.. (2017). Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 102. 254
  • Salgado, J. F.. (1997). The Five Factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. 30-43
  • Salgado, J. F.. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 76. 323
  • Salgado, J. F.. (1998). Manual técnico del inventario de personalidad de cinco factores (IP/5F). Tórculo.
  • Salgado, J. F.. (2014). Reliability, construct, and criterion validity of the Quasi-Ipsative Personality Inventory (QI5F/Tri). University of Santiago de Compostela.
  • Salgado, J. F.. (2016). A theoretical model of psychometric effects of faking on assessment procedures: Empirical findings and implications for personality at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 24. 209
  • Salgado, J. F.. (2017). Moderator effects of job complexity on the validity of forced-choice personality inventories for predicting job performance. Revista de Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 33. 229
  • Salgado, J. F,Anderson, N,Moscoso, S.. (2020). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  • 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. 797-834
  • Salgado, J. F,Lado, M.. (2018). Faking resistance of a quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventory without algebraic dependence. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones/Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 34. 213
  • Salgado, J. F,Moscoso, S,Anderson, N.. (2013). Handbook of personality at work. Routledge.
  • Salgado, J. F,Tauriz, G.. (2014). The Five-Factor model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 23. 3-30
  • Schmit, M. J,Ryan, A. M.. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78. 966
  • Smith, D. B,Ellingson, J. E.. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87. 211
  • Smith, D. B,Hanges, P. J,Dickson, M. W.. (2001). Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86. 304
  • Stark, S,Chernyshenko, O. S,Chan, K. Y,Lee, W. C,Drasgow, F.. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86. 943
  • Tucker, L. R.. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Personnel Research Section Report. 984.
  • Van Iddekinge, C. H,Raymark, P. H,Roth, P. L.. (2005). Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: Construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90. 536
  • Viswesvaran, C,Ones, D. S.. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 59. 197-210
  • Zavala, A.. (1965). Development of the forced-choice rating scale technique. Psychological Bulletin. 63. 117
  • Zhang, B,Sun, T,Drasgow, F,Chernyshenko, O. S,Nye, C. D,Stark, S,White, L. A.. (2019). Though forced, still valid: Psychometric equivalence of forced-choice and single-statement measures. Organizational Research Methods. 23. 569
  • Ziegler, M,MacCann, C,Roberts, R. D.. (2012). New perspectives on faking in personality assessment. Oxford University Press.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet