Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures.

The main aim of this article is to explicate why a transition to ideal point methods of scale construction is needed to advance the field of personality assessment. The study empirically demonstrated the substantive benefits of ideal point methodology as compared with the dominance framework underlying traditional methods of scale construction. Specifically, using a large, heterogeneous pool of order items, the authors constructed scales using traditional classical test theory, dominance item response theory (IRT), and ideal point IRT methods. The merits of each method were examined in terms of item pool utilization, model-data fit, measurement precision, and construct and criterion-related validity. Results show that adoption of the ideal point approach provided a more flexible platform for creating future personality measures, and this transition did not adversely affect the validity of personality test scores.

[1]  W. Mischel.  Personality and Assessment , 1996 .

[2]  S. Reise,et al.  Computerization and Adaptive Administration of the NEO PI-R , 2000, Assessment.

[3]  L. Clark,et al.  Validation of a computerized adaptive version of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). , 2005, Psychological assessment.

[4]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. , 1996 .

[5]  P. Costa,et al.  Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory☆ , 1991 .

[6]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters , 1982 .

[7]  S Stark,et al.  Fitting Item Response Theory Models to Two Personality Inventories: Issues and Insights , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[8]  H. Kimmel,et al.  An Item Response Theory Evaluation of an English Version of the Trier Personality Inventory (TPI) , 1993 .

[9]  Herbert Hoijtink,et al.  The Measurement of Latent Traits by Proximity Items , 1991 .

[10]  David Watson,et al.  Behavioral disinhibition versus constraint: A dispositional perspective , 1993 .

[11]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  The Handbook of Mental Control , 1992 .

[12]  David Andrich,et al.  A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies , 1996 .

[13]  C. Coombs.  A theory of data. , 1965, Psychology Review.

[14]  William Stout,et al.  A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality , 1987 .

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

[16]  O. Chernyshenko.  Applications of ideal point approaches to scale construction and scoring in personality measurement: The development of a six-faceted measure of conscientiousness. , 2003 .

[17]  S. Embretson,et al.  Item response theory for psychologists , 2000 .

[18]  Gregory L. Candell,et al.  Cross-Language and Cross-Cultural Comparisons in Scale Translations , 1986 .

[19]  S. Embretson.  The new rules of measurement. , 1996 .

[20]  Martha L. Stocking,et al.  Developing a Common Metric in Item Response Theory , 1983 .

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

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

[23]  Cees A. W. Glas,et al.  The derivation of some tests for the rasch model from the multinomial distribution , 1988 .

[24]  D. Thissen,et al.  Likelihood-Based Item-Fit Indices for Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models , 2000 .

[25]  David Andrich,et al.  A Hyperbolic Cosine Latent Trait Model For Unfolding Dichotomous Single-Stimulus Responses , 1993 .

[26]  L. Steinberg,et al.  The consequences of pairing questions: context effects in personality measurement. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  THE STRUCTURE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION BASED ON SEVEN MAJOR PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES , 2005 .

[28]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Effects of the testing situation on item responding: cause for concern. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  T. Conway,et al.  Demonstration of replicable dimensions of health behaviors. , 1990, Preventive medicine.

[30]  Dorothy Jean Begg,et al.  Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[32]  L. R. Goldberg.  The structure of phenotypic personality traits. , 1993, The American psychologist.

[33]  D. Jackson,et al.  The Impact of Faking on Employment Tests: Does Forced Choice Offer a Solution? , 2000 .

[34]  Niels G. Waller,et al.  Exploring nonlinear models in personality assessment: Development and preliminary validation of a negative emotionality scale. , 1996 .

[35]  John Hattie,et al.  Methodology Review: Assessing Unidimensionality of Tests and ltenls , 1985 .

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

[37]  Daniel M. Bolt,et al.  A Monte Carlo Comparison of Parametric and Nonparametric Polytomous DIF Detection Methods , 2002 .

[38]  S. Reise,et al.  Fitting the Two-Parameter Model to Personality Data , 1990 .

[39]  P. Costa,et al.  The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  R. Likert.  “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[41]  S. Hathaway,et al.  MMPI-2 : Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 : manual for administration and scoring , 1989 .

[42]  Brian W. Junker,et al.  Using Data Augmentation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the Estimation of Unfolding Response Models , 2003 .

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

[44]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: when are statistically significant effects practically important? , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  H. White,et al.  Risk Taking as a Predictor of Adolescent Sexual Activity and Use of Contraception , 1988, Journal of adolescent research.

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

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

[48]  David Thissen,et al.  Trace Lines for Testlets: A Use of Multiple-Categorical-Response Models. , 1989 .

[49]  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.

[50]  David Andrich,et al.  The Application of an Unfolding Model of the PIRT Type to the Measurement of Attitude , 1988 .

[51]  J. Block,et al.  Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry. , 1990, The American psychologist.

[52]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm , 1981 .

[53]  Lee Anna Clark,et al.  Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. , 1999 .

[54]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[55]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Fundamentals of Item Response Theory , 1991 .

[56]  L. Thurstone.  Attitudes Can Be Measured , 1928, American Journal of Sociology.

[57]  C. Bowyer,et al.  Problem drinking and obesity: a comparison in personality patterns and life-style. , 1990, The International journal of the addictions.

[58]  Arnold L. van den Wollenberg,et al.  Two new test statistics for the rasch model , 1982 .

[59]  Melvin R. Novick,et al.  Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , 1966 .

[60]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Statistical power of differential validity and differential prediction analyses for detecting measurement nonequivalence. , 1984 .

[61]  John Hattie,et al.  An Empirical Study of Various Indices for Determining Unidimensionality. , 1984, Multivariate behavioral research.

[62]  Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. , 1994 .

[63]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  Estimating Parameters in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model: Sensitivity to the Prior Distribution Assumption and the Number of Quadrature Points Used. , 1999 .

[64]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  THE GENERALIZED GRADED UNFOLDING MODEL: A GENERAL PARAMETRIC ITEM RESPONSE MODEL FOR UNFOLDING GRADED RESPONSES , 1998 .

[65]  S. Embretson,et al.  Personality Measurement Issues Viewed Through the Eyes of IRT , 1999 .

[66]  N G Waller,et al.  Computerized adaptive personality assessment: an illustration with the Absorption scale. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[67]  N. Martin,et al.  Willignes to drive when drunk and personality: A twin study , 1989, Behavior genetics.

[68]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. , 1983 .

[69]  D. Funder,et al.  Profiting from controversy. Lessons from the person-situation debate. , 1988, The American psychologist.

[70]  J. Butcher,et al.  Advances in clinical personality measurement : An item response theory analysis of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales , 1999 .

[71]  J. S. Roberts,et al.  A Unidimensional Item Response Model for Unfolding Responses From a Graded Disagree-Agree Response Scale , 1996 .

[72]  Wayne S. DeSarbo,et al.  Simple and Weighted Unfolding Threshold Models for the Spatial Representation of Binary Choice Data , 1986 .

[73]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[74]  R. Meijer,et al.  Analyzing psychopathology items: a case for nonparametric item response theory modeling. , 2004, Psychological methods.