Comparing the validity of trait estimates from the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format.

Wetzel, Eunike; Frick, Susanne A.

doi:10.1037/pas0000781

Cited by 37 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such scales share common-method variance with the rating version of the evaluated questionnaire, and the horse-race approach is therefore biased in favor of the rating scale. Only one study incorporated both FC and rating scale versions of the validated (Big Five) and validating (HEXACO) questionnaires as well as other-ratings (Wetzel & Frick, 2019). In this study, some intertrait correlations of the FC questionnaire differed drastically from those of the rating scale version of the same questionnaire and from meta-analytic estimates for Big Five intercorrelations, suggesting potential issues in the estimation of intertrait correlations.…”

Section: The Thurstonian Irt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?

Schulte

Benedek

Bürkner

2020

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forced-choice questionnaires can prevent faking and other response biases typically associated with rating scales. However, the derived trait scores are often unreliable and ipsative, making interindividual comparisons in high-stakes situations impossible. Several studies suggest that these problems vanish if the number of measured traits is high. To determine the necessary number of traits under varying sample sizes, factor loadings, and intertrait correlations, simulations were performed for the two most widely used scoring methods, namely the classical (ipsative) approach and Thurstonian item response theory (IRT) models. Results demonstrate that while especially Thurstonian IRT models perform well under ideal conditions, both methods yield insufficient reliabilities in most conditions resembling applied contexts. Moreover, not only the classical estimates but also the Thurstonian IRT estimates for questionnaires with equally keyed items remain (partially) ipsative, even when the number of traits is very high (i.e., 30). This result not only questions earlier assumptions regarding the use of classical scores in high-dimensional questionnaires, but it also raises doubts about many validation studies on Thurstonian IRT models because correlations of (partially) ipsative scores with external criteria cannot be interpreted in a usual way.

show abstract

Section: The Thurstonian Irt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?

Schulte

Benedek

Bürkner

2020

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We only describe the measures relevant to this study in the following. For a description of other administered measures (personality questionnaires assessing the Big Five, HEXACO, and Dark Triad), see Wetzel and Frick (2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wetzel and Frick (2020) only analyzed data from the MFC-matched and RS groups from the first administration of the BFT with an honest instruction. There is no overlap in research questions or analyses with this study with the exception of the comparison of the predictive validity between honest and fake-good condition, which also uses the criterion-related validities from the honest instruction for MFC-matched and RS (see also below).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.

Wetzel¹,

Frick²,

Brown³

2021

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data collection for Sample 2 was exempt from IRB approval. The data from Sample 2 were also used in Wetzel and Frick (2020).…”

Section: Methods Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Overlap Between Machiavellianism and Subclinical Psychopathy: The M7 and P7 Scales

Grosz

Harms

Dufner

et al. 2020

Collabra: Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Machiavellianism (Mach) and subclinical psychopathy are two widely studied antagonistic personality traits with distinct theoretical conceptualizations. Mach is conceptualized by strategic deviousness, cynicism, and pragmatic morality, whereas subclinical psychopathy is conceptualized by impulsive antisocial tendencies, callousness, and rule-breaking. However, existing measures of the two traits are typically highly correlated and have very similar nomological networks. Notably, even though psychopathy scales should be more strongly positively associated with antisocial impulsivity and more strongly negatively associated with conscientiousness than Mach scales, existing Mach and psychopathy scales tend to be similarly related to these constructs. We created a new Mach scale, the M7, and a new psychopathy scale, the P7, by selecting items from existing Mach and psychopathy scales on the basis of the correlations of these items with antisocial impulsivity and conscientiousness. Across three studies (combined N = 4,607), the M7 and P7 showed acceptable to good psychometric properties in terms of closeness to unidimensionality, measurement precision, temporal stability, measurement invariance across language and gender groups, and convergent and discriminant validity (nomological network, self-other agreement, and interpersonal perceptions in group interactions). Most importantly, the new scales assess clearly distinct latent traits that are more in line with their theoretical conceptualizations than established scales are.

show abstract

Comparing the validity of trait estimates from the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format.

Abstract: Rachelle Sass, and Georg Schäfer for their help with data collection. We thank Michael Dantlgraber for allowing us to use the items from his Master's thesis.

Cited by 37 publications

References 51 publications

Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?

Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?

Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.

Reducing the Overlap Between Machiavellianism and Subclinical Psychopathy: The M7 and P7 Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About