Psychometric properties for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: dichotomous versus polytomous conventional and IRT scoring.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 26(3) of Psychological Assessment (see record 2014-16017-001). The mean, standard deviation and alpha coefficient originally reported in Table 1 should be 74.317, 10.214 and .802, respectively. The validity coefficients in the last column of Table 4 are affected as well. Correcting this error did not change the substantive interpretations of the results, but did increase the mean, standard deviation, alpha coefficient, and validity coefficients reported for the Honesty subscale in the text and in Tables 1 and 4. The corrected versions of Tables 1 and Table 4 are shown in the erratum.] Item response theory (IRT) models were applied to dichotomous and polytomous scoring of the Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management subscales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1991, 1999). Two dichotomous scoring methods reflecting exaggerated endorsement and exaggerated denial of socially desirable behaviors were examined. The 1- and 2-parameter logistic models (1PLM, 2PLM, respectively) were applied to dichotomous responses, and the partial credit model (PCM) and graded response model (GRM) were applied to polytomous responses. For both subscales, the 2PLM fit dichotomous responses better than did the 1PLM, and the GRM fit polytomous responses better than did the PCM. Polytomous GRM and raw scores for both subscales yielded higher test-retest and convergent validity coefficients than did PCM, 1PLM, 2PLM, and dichotomous raw scores. Information plots showed that the GRM provided consistently high measurement precision that was superior to that of all other IRT models over the full range of both construct continuums. Dichotomous scores reflecting exaggerated endorsement of socially desirable behaviors provided noticeably weak precision at low levels of the construct continuums, calling into question the use of such scores for detecting instances of "faking bad." Dichotomous models reflecting exaggerated denial of the same behaviors yielded much better precision at low levels of the constructs, but it was still less precision than that of the GRM. These results support polytomous over dichotomous scoring in general, alternative dichotomous scoring for detecting faking bad, and extension of GRM scoring to situations in which IRT offers additional practical advantages over classical test theory (adaptive testing, equating, linking, scaling, detecting differential item functioning, and so forth).

[1]  W. D. Murry,et al.  Scoring the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Empirical comparison of preference score versus latent-trait methods. , 1994 .

[2]  R. J. De Ayala,et al.  A Comparison of the Partial Credit and Graded Response Models in Computerized Adaptive Testing , 1992 .

[3]  D. Marlowe,et al.  A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. , 1960, Journal of consulting psychology.

[4]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[5]  D. Paulhus Measurement and control of response bias. , 1991 .

[6]  A. L. Edwards,et al.  Response sets and factor loadings on sixty-one personality scales. , 1962 .

[7]  T. Haladyna Effects of Empirical Option Weighting on Estimating Domain Scores and Making Pass/Fail Decisions , 1990 .

[8]  Delroy L. Paulhus,et al.  Social desirable responding: The evolution of a construct , 2002 .

[9]  D. Paulhus,et al.  Effects of Self-Presentation Strategies on Personality Profiles and their Structure , 1995 .

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

[11]  R. Meijer,et al.  An Item Response Theory Analysis of Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children or Why Strong Clinical Scales Should be Distrusted , 2011, Assessment.

[12]  S. Reise,et al.  How many IRT parameters does it take to model psychopathology items? , 2003, Psychological methods.

[13]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  A generalizability analysis of score consistency for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. , 2013, Psychological assessment.

[14]  Y. Ben-Porath,et al.  Comparability and validity of computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2. , 1995, Journal of personality assessment.

[15]  J. S. Tanaka,et al.  A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation , 1985 .

[16]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  A Multifaceted Academic Self-Concept: Its Hierarchical Structure and Its Relation to Academic Achievement. , 1988 .

[17]  Walter P. Vispoel Computerized Versus Paper-and-Pencil Assessment of Self-Concept: Score Comparability and Respondent Preferences , 2000 .

[18]  D. Jackson,et al.  The Meaning And Measurement Of Neuroticism And Anxiety , 1961 .

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

[20]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  Tennessee Self Concept Scale: Reliability, internal structure, and construct validity. , 1988 .

[21]  Daryl G. Kroner,et al.  Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample , 1996 .

[22]  Jessica Bagger,et al.  The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) , 2007 .

[23]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[24]  Chiungjung Huang,et al.  Relation between self-esteem and socially desirable responding and the role of socially desirable responding in the relation between self-esteem and performance , 2013 .

[25]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) , 2000, Assessment.

[26]  A. Cooper,et al.  A Psychometric Analysis of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF) Using Item Response Theory , 2010, Journal of personality assessment.

[27]  F. Lord Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems , 1980 .

[28]  B. Byrne Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Issues and Instrumentation , 1996 .

[29]  D. Paulhus,et al.  The Bidimensional Impression Management Index (BIMI): Measuring Agentic and Communal Forms of Impression Management , 2014, Journal of personality assessment.

[30]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[31]  An Introduction to Polytomous Item Response Theory Models. , 1993 .

[32]  G. Masters A rasch model for partial credit scoring , 1982 .

[33]  Barbara G. Dodd,et al.  Computerized Adaptive Testing With Polytomous Items , 1995 .

[34]  Steven P Reise,et al.  A Discussion of Modern Versus Traditional Psychometrics As Applied to Personality Assessment Scales , 2003, Journal of personality assessment.

[35]  Christopher L. Martin,et al.  Socially Desirable Responding in Computerized Questionnaires: When Questionnaire Purpose Matters More Than the Mode1 , 2002 .

[36]  B. gray-Little,et al.  An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale , 1997 .

[37]  E. Keogh,et al.  Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management correlates of EPQ-R dimensions. , 1998, The Journal of psychology.

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

[39]  M. Finger A Review of MicroFACT 2.0: A Microcomputer Factor Analysis Program for Ordered Polytomous Data and Mainframe Size Problems , 2004 .

[40]  M. Zickar,et al.  Measurement Equivalence Between Applicant and Incumbent Groups: An IRT Analysis of Personality Scales , 2001 .

[41]  S. Reise,et al.  An Item Response Theory Analysis of the General and Academic Scales of the Self-Description Questionnaire II , 1995 .

[42]  G. Bonanno,et al.  Rasch Modeling of the Self-Deception Scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding , 2009 .

[43]  Steven P. Reise,et al.  Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalability , 1993 .

[44]  Robert D. Ankenmann,et al.  Comparison of Dichotomous and Polytomous Item Response Models in Equating Scores from Tests Composed of Testlets , 2001 .

[45]  F. Zaldívar,et al.  Evaluation of alcohol and other drug use and the influence of social desirability: Direct and camouflaged measures. , 2009 .

[46]  John Hattie,et al.  An examination of the psychometric properties of the physical self-description questionnaire using a polytomous item response model , 2004 .

[47]  M. J. Kolen,et al.  Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement for Scale Scores Using IRT , 1996 .

[48]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[49]  F. Samejima Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores , 1968 .

[50]  L. McFarland Warning Against Faking on a Personality Test: Effects on Applicant Reactions and Personality Test Scores , 2003 .

[51]  Jochen Musch,et al.  Comparing Continuous and Dichotomous Scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding , 2002, Journal of personality assessment.

[52]  M. Rosenberg Conceiving the self , 1979 .

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

[54]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  Response Biases and Their Relation to Sex Differences in Multiple Domains of Self-Concept , 2000 .

[55]  Robert R. Hirschfeld,et al.  Work Alienation as an Individual‐Difference Construct for Predicting Workplace Adjustment: A Test in Two Samples1 , 2000 .

[56]  M. Rosenberg Society and the adolescent self-image , 1966 .

[57]  Randall E. Schumacker,et al.  Ability Estimation Under Different Item Parameterization and Scoring Models , 2004 .

[58]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTS , 1984 .

[59]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[60]  A. T. Church,et al.  Identifying Cultural Differences in Items and Traits , 1997 .

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

[62]  David Thissen,et al.  INFORMATION IN WRONG RESPONSES TO THE RAVEN PROGRESSIVE MATRICES , 1976 .

[63]  Deborah J. Harris,et al.  Psychometric Properties of Scale Scores and Performance Levels for Performance Assessments Using Polytomous IRT , 2000 .

[64]  M. Peruggia Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.) , 2003 .

[65]  Paul Rosenfeld,et al.  Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? , 1992 .

[66]  Ulrich Trautwein,et al.  Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: construct validation and relations to well-being and achievement. , 2006, Journal of personality.

[67]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  Convergences Among Stylistic Response Measures from Objective Personality Tests , 1964 .

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