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

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT
HyeSun Lee
{"title":"Reduction of faking with the use of a forced-choice personality test: Cross-cultural comparisons between South Korea and the United States","authors":"HyeSun Lee","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>N</i><sub>SK</sub> = 179, <i>N</i><sub>US</sub> = 217). Cohen's <i>d</i> values for within-subjects designs (<i>d</i>s<sub>within</sub>) 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 <i>d</i>s<sub>within</sub>. The forced-choice format appeared to successfully reduce faking for both countries as the average <i>ds</i><sub><i>within</i></sub> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijsa.12408","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12408","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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 (NSK = 179, NUS = 217). Cohen's d values for within-subjects designs (dswithin) 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 dswithin. The forced-choice format appeared to successfully reduce faking for both countries as the average dswithin 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.

Abstract Image

使用强迫选择人格测试减少造假:韩国和美国的跨文化比较
由于对虚假和反应风格的稳健性,强迫选择格式测试已被建议作为李克特量表人员选择措施的替代方案。本研究比较了韩国和美国在李克特量表和强迫选择五因素人格测试中作假的程度。此外,还研究了强制选择的形式是否有效地减少了两国的欺诈行为。数据收集自396名在职人员,包括诚实和申请人条件(NSK = 179, NUS = 217)。使用两种情况下受试者内设计(dswithin)的Cohen d值来测量在每种形式和国家中发生的欺诈程度。在这两个国家,李克特量表中出现的虚假程度都比强迫选择量表中的虚假程度要大,在韩国,五种人格特征中的虚假程度要大0.07到0.12个百分点。强制选择模式似乎成功地减少了两国的欺诈行为,两国的平均范围都下降了0.06。然而,在两国之间,发生在强制选择格式中的伪造模式有所不同。在韩国,开放性和严谨性的得分有所上升,而外向性和宜人性的得分则大幅下降。本文讨论了强迫选择模式下导致特质特异性作假的潜在因素,以及文化对人格特质知觉和thurston项目反应理论(IRT)模型得分估计的影响。最后,阐述了强制选择格式对多元文化选择设置的不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信