A methodological study of forced-choice performance rating

A forced-choice form of the Taylor Anxiety Scale.

“…In order to evaluate the reliability of the forced-choice scales the internal consistency estimates of reliability were obtained by the use of the Kuder-Richardson formula 21 [13] and are reported in Table 2. 8 The A scale was significantly more reliable (p < .001) than the Key 2 scores of FC-1 (t = 5.14) and of FC-2 (t = 5.08). The Key 1 forced-choice scale scores were more reliable (p c= .001) than the Key 2 scores for FC-1 (t <= 7.31), for FC-2 (t c= 8.56), and for FC-T (t = 4.25).…”

“…3 One method of dealing with the response tendencies associated with considerations of social favorability is to estimate their influence on test scores as is done in the K and L scales of the MMPI [16]. Another method attempts to reduce the possible effects of differences in the social acceptability of items on the test scores by use of the forcedchoice technique [8,22,25,31,32]. On the basis of available evidence Cronbach [4] has concluded that the forced-choice technique can be made relatively free from the influence of extraneous response sets, offering the possibility of increasing the predictive value of tests in which it is used.…”

The effect of specific selection sets on a forced-choice self-description inventory.

“…8 A similar purpose might be achieved by introducing a selection set into the establishment of the preference index, i.e., by obtaining judgments to a question like "how favorable would this term be as a description of a job applicant?" As several writers (6,7,11) have indicated, many varieties of preference index are possible. An adequate index is one which controls for sources of error known to exist.…”

“…Since alternatives are equally favorable, S is presumably deprived of the opportunity to describe himself in a consistently favorable manner. Several studies (3,6,8) have shown that this is a tenable assumption; Ss do not improve their scores on forced-choice scales when instructed to describe themselves in the most favorable light. However, Gordon (4) finds that gains are made on two scales of the Gordon Personal Profile when scores from guidance and employment conditions are compared, while scores on the two remaining keys decrease.…”

Favorableness Ratings of Forced‐choice Statements: Applicants vs. Non‐applicants

“…Various authors have approached this problem in different ways. Based on the work of Highland and Berkshire (1951), the present authors set out to build a "forced-choice" selection test by matching statements in terms of their favorableness rating. Previous company research provided the subject matter of the statements which were put into the language of insurance salesmen by reviewing the wording with salesmen and sales management .…”