When does random responding distort self-report personality assessment? An example with the NEO PI-R

Abstract Recent meta-analyses suggest that, notwithstanding almost 100 years of study, concerns about the impact of response biases on the validity of self-report personality scales remain to be justified. This study addresses the topic by demonstrating that random responding is indeed an issue for self-report personality scales, and that limitations associated with base rates exist that affect the ability of moderated multiple regression to evaluate fully the effects of a response bias. Overall, it is suggested that dismissing response biases as a concern for self-report personality assessment is premature when based only on a lack of significant regression moderator effects.

[1]  Newell K. Eaton,et al.  Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities , 1990 .

[2]  R. McCrae,et al.  On the invalidity of validity scales: evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[4]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance , 2010 .

[5]  C. Judd,et al.  Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  Leonard A. White,et al.  ABLE implementation issues and related research. , 2001 .

[7]  R. Holden.  Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and in nonexperimental contexts. , 2007 .

[8]  L. Uziel.  Rethinking Social Desirability Scales , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[9]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables , 1992 .

[10]  M. Leary,et al.  Handbook of individual differences in social behavior , 2009 .

[11]  Niels G. Waller,et al.  Five Big Issues in Clinical Personality Assessment: A Rejoinder to Costa and McCrae , 1992 .

[12]  B. Kinder,et al.  Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: development and initial validation. , 1997, Journal of personality assessment.

[13]  R. Landers,et al.  Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  R. McGrath,et al.  Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  J. E. Kurtz,et al.  Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Still more substance than style , 2008 .

[16]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS , 2007 .

[17]  Niels G. Waller,et al.  "Normal" Personality Inventories in Clinical Assessment: General Requirements and the Potential for Using the NEO Personality Inventory , 1992 .