Assessing Dimensionality of the Ideal Point Item Response Theory Model Using Posterior Predictive Model Checking

Although the use of ideal point item response theory (IRT) models for organizational research has increased over the last decade, the assessment of construct dimensionality of ideal point scales has been overlooked in previous research. In this study, we developed and evaluated dimensionality assessment methods for an ideal point IRT model under the Bayesian framework. We applied the posterior predictive model checking (PPMC) approach to the most widely used ideal point IRT model, the generalized graded unfolding model (GGUM). We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation to compare the performance of item pair discrepancy statistics and to evaluate the Type I error and power rates of the methods. The simulation results indicated that the Bayesian dimensionality detection method controlled Type I errors reasonably well across the conditions. In addition, the proposed method showed better performance than existing methods, yielding acceptable power when 20% of the items were generated from the secondary dimension. Organizational implications and limitations of the study are further discussed.

[1]  Wendy M. Yen,et al.  Effects of Local Item Dependence on the Fit and Equating Performance of the Three-Parameter Logistic Model , 1984 .

[2]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned , 2001 .

[3]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Fitting measurement models to vocational interest data: are dominance models ideal? , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Erin L. O'Brien,et al.  Do Applicants and Incumbents Respond to Personality Items Similarly? A Comparison of Dominance and Ideal Point Response Models , 2011 .

[5]  Richard J. Patz,et al.  A Straightforward Approach to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Item Response Models , 1999 .

[6]  Roy Levy,et al.  Posterior Predictive Model Checking for Conjunctive Multidimensionality in Item Response Theory , 2011 .

[7]  Rose A. Mueller-Hanson,et al.  Faking and selection: considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  William Stout,et al.  Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items , 1999 .

[9]  Nathan R. Kuncel,et al.  Toward a New Method of Detecting Deliberately Faked Personality Tests: The Use of Idiosyncratic Item Responses , 2007 .

[10]  D. Andrich,et al.  The structural relationship between attitude and behavior statements from the unfolding perspective. , 1998 .

[11]  J. J. Donovan,et al.  The Impact of Applicant Faking on Selection Measures, Hiring Decisions, and Employee Performance , 2014 .

[12]  J. McGrane The Bipolarity of Attitudes: Unfolding the Implications of Ambivalence , 2019, Applied psychological measurement.

[13]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RACIOETHNIC AND SEX SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT IN SELECTION , 2008 .

[14]  Nathan T. Carter,et al.  The Influence of Dimensionality on Parameter Estimation Accuracy in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model , 2011 .

[15]  L. Tay,et al.  A Within-Person Examination of the Ideal-Point Response Process , 2018, Psychological assessment.

[16]  Jinfu Zhang,et al.  An Item-Level Analysis for Detecting Faking on Personality Tests: Appropriateness of Ideal Point Item Response Theory Models , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[17]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Theoretical, Statistical, and Substantive Issues in the Assessment of Construct Dimensionality , 2012 .

[18]  Nathan T. Carter,et al.  An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale , 2010 .

[19]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Adjusting the Adjusted χ2/df Ratio Statistic for Dichotomous Item Response Theory Analyses , 2012 .

[20]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  When Two Factors Don’t Reflect Two Constructs: How Item Characteristics Can Produce Artifactual Factors , 1997 .

[21]  T. Judge,et al.  Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  Henk A. L. Kiers,et al.  Why Factor Analysis Often is the Incorrect Model for Analyzing Bipolar Concepts, and What Model to Use Instead , 1994 .

[23]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Fitting Polytomous Item Response Theory Models to Multiple-Choice Tests , 1995 .

[24]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  Marginal Maximum A Posteriori Item Parameter Estimation for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model , 2011 .

[25]  Seang-Hwane Joo,et al.  GGUM-RANK Statement and Person Parameter Estimation With Multidimensional Forced Choice Triplets , 2019, Applied psychological measurement.

[26]  Hal S. Stern,et al.  Posterior Predictive Assessment of Item Response Theory Models , 2006 .

[27]  G. Makransky,et al.  Psychometric Properties of the Parent and Teacher ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) , 2014, Assessment.

[28]  William Stout,et al.  A New Item Response Theory Modeling Approach with Applications to Unidimensionality Assessment and Ability Estimation , 1990 .

[29]  Jason L. Huang,et al.  Personality and adaptive performance at work: a meta-analytic investigation. , 2014, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  M. Zickar,et al.  Review of Item Response Theory Practices in Organizational Research , 2017 .

[31]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  GGUM2004: A Windows-Based Program to Estimate Parameters in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model , 2006 .

[32]  Guido Makransky,et al.  Critical Values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of Local Dependence in the Rasch Model Using Residual Correlations , 2017, Applied psychological measurement.

[33]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[34]  Andrew T. Jebb,et al.  Establishing Construct Continua in Construct Validation: The Process of Continuum Specification , 2018, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.

[35]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[36]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[37]  Alberto Maydeu-Olivares,et al.  Item Response Modeling of Forced-Choice Questionnaires , 2011 .

[38]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[39]  Michael D. Maraun,et al.  The Extra-Factor Phenomenon Revisited: Unidimensional Unfolding as Quadratic Factor Analysis , 2001 .

[40]  Seang-Hwane Joo,et al.  Development of Information Functions and Indices for the GGUM-RANK Multidimensional Forced Choice IRT Model , 2018, Journal of Educational Measurement.

[41]  L. R. Goldberg THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS FOR THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE , 1992 .

[42]  Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation of Item Parameters for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model , 2006 .

[43]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? , 2001 .

[44]  Mark L. Davison,et al.  On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data , 1977 .

[45]  Joseph G. Rosse,et al.  The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. , 1998 .

[46]  Seang-Hwane Joo,et al.  Evaluating Anchor-Item Designs for Concurrent Calibration With the GGUM , 2017, Applied psychological measurement.

[47]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  A Q3 Statistic for Unfolding Item Response Theory Models: Assessment of Unidimensionality With Two Factors and Simple Structure , 2005 .

[48]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  A General Item Response Theory Model for Unfolding Unidimensional Polytomous Responses , 2000 .

[49]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  Characteristics of MML/EAP Parameter Estimates in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model , 2002 .

[50]  Bo Zhang,et al.  Advancing and Evaluating IRT Model Data Fit Indices in Organizational Research , 2020, Organizational Research Methods.

[51]  David J Weiss,et al.  Psychometric Evaluation and Calibration of Health-Related Quality of Life Item Banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) , 2007, Medical care.

[52]  O. Chernyshenko,et al.  Latent Trait Theory Approach to Measuring Person-Organization Fit: Conceptual Rationale and Empirical Evaluation , 2009 .

[53]  L. Tay,et al.  Why Self-Reports of Happiness and Sadness May Not Necessarily Contradict Bipolarity: A Psychometric Review and Proposal , 2017 .

[54]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Validity Issues in the Likert and Thurstone Approaches to Attitude Measurement , 1999 .

[55]  Nathan T. Carter,et al.  Test-taker reactions to ideal point measures of personality , 2020 .

[56]  Vincent Ng,et al.  Ideal Point Modeling of Non-cognitive Constructs: Review and Recommendations for Research , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[57]  Philseok Lee,et al.  Adaptive testing with the GGUM-RANK multidimensional forced choice model: Comparison of pair, triplet, and tetrad scoring , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[58]  F. Drasgow,et al.  75 Years After Likert: Thurstone Was Right! , 2010, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[59]  F. Drasgow,et al.  An IRT Approach to Constructing and Scoring Pairwise Preference Items Involving Stimuli on Different Dimensions: The Multi-Unidimensional Pairwise-Preference Model , 2005 .

[60]  Randall D. Penfield Assessing Differential Step Functioning in Polytomous Items Using a Common Odds Ratio Estimator. , 2007 .

[61]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. , 2007, Psychological assessment.

[62]  Christopher D. Nye,et al.  Development of the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) to Support Army Personnel Selection and Classification Decisions , 2012 .

[63]  Implementation of Marginal Bayesian Estimation with Four-Parameter Beta Prior Distributions , 1997 .

[64]  Michael T. Brannick,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures , 2006 .

[65]  D. Thissen,et al.  Local Dependence Indexes for Item Pairs Using Item Response Theory , 1997 .

[66]  S. Stark,et al.  Item Parameter Estimation With the General Hyperbolic Cosine Ideal Point IRT Model , 2019, Applied psychological measurement.

[67]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  A Linear Logistic Multidimensional Model for Dichotomous Item Response Data , 1997 .

[68]  William L. Farmer,et al.  From ABLE to TAPAS: A New Generation of Personality Tests to Support Military Selection and Classification Decisions , 2014 .

[69]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Posterior Predictive Model Checking for Multidimensionality in Item Response Theory , 2006 .

[70]  Charles A. Scherbaum,et al.  Examining Faking on Personality Inventories Using Unfolding Item Response Theory Models , 2013, Journal of personality assessment.

[71]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Examining the item response process to personality measures in high‐stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity , 2020, Personnel Psychology.

[72]  Eean R. Crawford,et al.  Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. , 2013, The Journal of applied psychology.

[73]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. , 1994 .

[74]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Developing Ideal Intermediate Personality Items for the Ideal Point Model , 2015 .

[75]  Jill E. Ellingson,et al.  Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[76]  Confirmatory Multidimensional IRT Unfolding Models for Graded-Response Items , 2016, Applied psychological measurement.