Personality test item validity: insights from “self” and “other” research and theory

Gordon, Eric D.; Holden, Ronald R.

doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00010-5

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, there is evidence that test takers can be distinguished in terms of the strategies used to respond to personality items. Some test takers relate items to previous experiences and behaviors, whereas other test takers think about how relevant others have characterized them with respect to the trait-relevant behavior mentioned (Gordon & Holden, 1998). The common thread running through these studies is that test takers can be distinguished on the basis of their response styles and strategies.…”

Section: Explanations Of the Frame-of-reference Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

Lievens¹,

Corte²,

Schollaert³

2008

Journal of Applied Psychology

187

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the understanding of why the use of a frame-of-reference leads to increased criterion-related validity of personality inventories. Two competing explanations are described and tested. A between-subjects (N = 337) and a within-subject (N = 105) study are conducted to test the hypothesized effects of use of a frame of reference on reliability and validity. Regarding the effects on reliability, use of a frame of reference reduces within-person inconsistency (instead of between-person variability) in responding to generic items. Use of a frame of reference further leads to higher validity as a result of the reduction of between-person variability and within-person inconsistency. Yet, reducing these inconsistencies is not enough. It is also important to use a frame of reference that is conceptually relevant to the criterion. Besides implications for contextualized personality inventories, these results provide an explanation for the moderate validities of generic personality inventories.

show abstract

Section: Explanations Of the Frame-of-reference Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

Lievens¹,

Corte²,

Schollaert³

2008

Journal of Applied Psychology

187

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Holden and his colleagues focused on the typical cognitive strategies evoked by items and found that items evoking the recollection of specific behaviors were less valid than items that encouraged respondents to think about themselves in terms of general traits, comparisons to others, and statements by others. When respondents are told to use particular strategies, similar results are obtained (Gordon & Holden, 1998). From a person-centered context, the performative view of item responses says that respondents who habitually think about responding in terms of traits are considering the trait indicativity of the item and will therefore tend to provide more valid responses.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 68%

The Impact of Item Characteristics on Item and Scale Validity

Johnson¹

2004

Multivariate Behavioral Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes the relation between personality items' validities, defined as the items' correlations with acquaintance ratings on the Big 5 personality factors, and other itemmetric properties including ambiguity, syntactic complexity, social desirability, content, and trait indicativity. Five external validity coefficients for each item on the California Psychological Inventory were correlated with a number of itemmetric variables often assumed to affect item validity. Item validity correlated positively with social desirability and trait indicativity and negatively with ambiguity across the five factors. Other characteristics had a more limited influence on item validity. Multiple regression analyses revealed trait indicativity -how obviously an item response indicates a trait -to be the most important determinant of item validity. Scales built from itemmetrically sound versus poor items showed differential validity in two additional samples. Implications for the psychological processes underlying responses to personality items are discussed.

show abstract

“…The choices at each stage of the development process were made in order to address the practical and theoretical concerns outlined. The decision to use adjectival items in conjunction with a Likert‐type scale response format was made to maximize item validity (Holden et al, 1985), increase the ease of response (Gaskell et al, 1995), and minimize response set bias (Gordon & Holden, 1998). These decisions also made it possible to present items referenced in relation to a clear and consistent behavioral context directly relevant to the workplace but not directly linked to any specific job or environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, such items are often irrelevant or inapplicable to particular subgroups of respondents, thus reducing the robustness of subsequent analyses (Waller, 1989). For instance, situationally focused statements may provoke different gender responses (Kline, 2000) and are less reliable and valid than items dealing directly with traits (Gordon & Holden, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE FIVE‐FACTOR MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE (FFMQ): AN ADJECTIVAL‐BASED PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR USE IN OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS¹

Gill

Hodgkinson

2007

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a proliferation in the number of instruments for assessing the Big 5 traits, extant measures are beset with limitations that render their use problematic in the workplace; that is, they contain generic as opposed to occupationally relevant items, couched in idiosyncratic, culturally specific language, demanding high reading ability levels, and are overly cumbersome. The 5 Factor Model Questionnaire (FFMQ) was devised to address these concerns. Five studies, spanning multiple samples and organizational contexts, demonstrate that the FFMQ is suitable for use with individuals drawn from the widest possible range of ability levels and cultural and socioeconomic groupings. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are in line with the hypothesized factor structure, and the resulting new scales exhibit acceptable reliability (internal consistency and temporal stability) and convergent and discriminant validity in respect of Costa and McCrae's (1992) NEO‐PI‐R scales. Furthermore, the new FFMQ scales are differentially correlated with independent ratings of overall job proficiency across three occupationally distinct samples.

show abstract

Personality test item validity: insights from “self” and “other” research and theory

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

The Impact of Item Characteristics on Item and Scale Validity

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE FIVE‐FACTOR MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE (FFMQ): AN ADJECTIVAL‐BASED PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR USE IN OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Personality test item validity: insights from “self” and “other” research and theory

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

The Impact of Item Characteristics on Item and Scale Validity

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE FIVE‐FACTOR MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE (FFMQ): AN ADJECTIVAL‐BASED PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR USE IN OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE FIVE‐FACTOR MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE (FFMQ): AN ADJECTIVAL‐BASED PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR USE IN OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS¹