Reduction of faking with the use of a forced‐choice personality test: Cross‐cultural comparisons between South Korea and the United States

Abstract

Forced-choice format tests have been suggested as an alternative to Likert-scale measures for personnel selection due to robustness to faking and response styles. This study compared degrees of faking occurring in Likert-scale and forced-choice five-factor personality tests between South Korea and the United States. Also, it was examined whether the forced-choice format was effective at reducing faking in both countries. Data were collected from 396 incumbents participating in both honest and applicant conditions (N SK = 179, N US = 217). Cohen's d values for within-subjects designs (ds within ) for between the two conditions were utilized to measure magnitudes of faking occurring in each format and country. In both countries, the degrees of faking occurring in the Likert-scale were larger than those from the forced-choice format, and the magnitudes of faking across five personality traits were larger in South Korea by from 0.07 to 0.12 in ds within .The forced-choice format appeared to successfully reduce faking for both countries as the average ds within decreased by 0.06 in both countries. However, the patterns of faking occurring in the forced-choice format varied between the two countries. In South Korea, degrees of faking in Openness and Conscientiousness increased, whereas those in Extraversion and Agreeableness were substantially decreased. Potential factors leading to trait-specific faking under the forced-choice format were discussed in relation to cultural influence on the perception of personality traits and score estimation in Thurstonian item response theory (IRT) models. Finally, the adverse impact of using forced-choice formats on multicultural selection settings was elaborated.

Faking resistance of a quasi‐ipsative RIASEC occupational interest measure

“…Although there seems to have been great success with QI personality inventories for the purposes of limiting faking (H. Lee, 2022; Martínez et al, 2021, 2022; Salgado & Lado, 2018), the QI version of the RIASEC occupational interest measure was not as effective and did not seem to be appropriate for all contexts. Given the potential drawbacks of QI response formats, such as lack of availability, cost of development, possible scale interdependence, and difficulties involved in scoring and interpretation, the efficacy of these formats should not be assumed for all circumstances and individual differences measures.…”

“…For instance, Hicks (1970) did not recommend the use of ipsative instruments due to their “extensive psychometric limitations.” Since Christiansen et al (1998), a large body of literature has emerged that supports the utility of such measures for faking prevention. Numerous studies have shown that FC personality measures can limit faking (Bartram, 2007; Cao & Drasgow, 2019; Christiansen et al, 2005; Salgado & Táuriz, 2014; Wetzel et al, 2021) and that QI personality measures have better criterion validity in contexts where faking is expected (Jackson et al, 2000; H. Lee, 2022; Salgado & Lado, 2018; Salgado et al, 2015). However, this has yet to be confirmed for interest measures such as RIASEC.…”