Forced-Choice Assessment of Work-Related Maladaptive Personality Traits: Preliminary Evidence From an Application of Thurstonian Item Response Modeling

Abstract

This article describes an investigation of whether Thurstonian item response modeling is a viable method for assessment of maladaptive traits. Forced-choice responses from 420 working adults to a broad-range personality inventory assessing six maladaptive traits were considered. The Thurstonian item response model's fit to the forced-choice data was adequate, while the fit of a counterpart item response model to responses to the same items but arranged in a single-stimulus design was poor. Mono-trait hetero-method correlations indicated corresponding traits in the two formats overlapped substantially, although they did not measure equivalent constructs. A better goodness of fit and higher factor loadings for the Thurstonian item response model, coupled with a clearer conceptual alignment to the theoretical trait definitions, suggested that the single-stimulus item responses were influenced by biases that the independent clusters measurement model did not account for. Researchers may wish to consider forced-choice designs and appropriate item response modeling techniques such as Thurstonian item response modeling for personality questionnaire applications in industrial psychology, especially when assessing maladaptive traits. We recommend further investigation of this approach in actual selection situations and with different assessment instruments.

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

“…In these contexts, the MFC format might lead to more accurate inferences than the RS format. The MFC format has already been applied to a variety of constructs, including broad personality traits such as the Big Five (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011;Lee et al, 2018) and adaptive and maladaptive work-and performance-related dimensions (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2013;Guenole et al, 2018;Stark et al, 2014;Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, & White, 2012). This study compared an MFC and an RS version of a Big Five instrument, the Big Five Triplets, with respect to construct validity, criterion-related validity, and test-retest reliability.…”

Though Forced, Still Valid: Psychometric Equivalence of Forced-Choice and Single-Statement Measures

“…To our knowledge, however, only a few studies have done this. Among those few studies, most have examined the equivalence of dominance-model-based SS and FC formats and found generally supportive evidence (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011Guenole, Brown, & Cooper, 2016;Lee, Lee, &Stark, 2018). However, as mentioned above, evidence has been accumulating that shows ideal point models more accurately capture the response processes underlying various psychological measures.…”

“…If these assumptions do not hold empirically, treating FC estimates and SS estimates as equivalent may be problematic. For example, Guenole, Brown, and Cooper (2016) found that statement factor loadings differed substantially between FC and SS formats, suggesting that respondents may interpret them differently. Much more empirical data are needed to examine their degree of equivalence.…”

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

“…Moreover, the PID-5 Over-reporting Scale [97] can detect the tendency to exaggerate or fabricate personality problems, and further scales are available for detecting different types of faking good [98]. A promising way to deal with such response patterns is using alternative measures that employ forced choice technique such as the Goldsmiths-60-item questionnaire [99]. [115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123].…”