Reliability Estimates for IRT-Based Forced-Choice Assessment Scores

IF 8.9 2区管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT

Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2021-03-11 DOI:10.1177/1094428121999086

Yin Lin

{"title":"Reliability Estimates for IRT-Based Forced-Choice Assessment Scores","authors":"Yin Lin","doi":"10.1177/1094428121999086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forced-choice (FC) assessments of noncognitive psychological constructs (e.g., personality, behavioral tendencies) are popular in high-stakes organizational testing scenarios (e.g., informing hiring decisions) due to their enhanced resistance against response distortions (e.g., faking good, impression management). The measurement precisions of FC assessment scores used to inform personnel decisions are of paramount importance in practice. Different types of reliability estimates are reported for FC assessment scores in current publications, while consensus on best practices appears to be lacking. In order to provide understanding and structure around the reporting of FC reliability, this study systematically examined different types of reliability estimation methods for Thurstonian IRT-based FC assessment scores: their theoretical differences were discussed, and their numerical differences were illustrated through a series of simulations and empirical studies. In doing so, this study provides a practical guide for appraising different reliability estimation methods for IRT-based FC assessment scores.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"25 1","pages":"575 - 590"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1094428121999086","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428121999086","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

Forced-choice (FC) assessments of noncognitive psychological constructs (e.g., personality, behavioral tendencies) are popular in high-stakes organizational testing scenarios (e.g., informing hiring decisions) due to their enhanced resistance against response distortions (e.g., faking good, impression management). The measurement precisions of FC assessment scores used to inform personnel decisions are of paramount importance in practice. Different types of reliability estimates are reported for FC assessment scores in current publications, while consensus on best practices appears to be lacking. In order to provide understanding and structure around the reporting of FC reliability, this study systematically examined different types of reliability estimation methods for Thurstonian IRT-based FC assessment scores: their theoretical differences were discussed, and their numerical differences were illustrated through a series of simulations and empirical studies. In doing so, this study provides a practical guide for appraising different reliability estimation methods for IRT-based FC assessment scores.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于irt的强迫选择评估分数的可靠性评估

对非认知心理结构（如个性、行为倾向）的强迫选择（FC）评估在高风险的组织测试场景中很受欢迎（如为招聘决策提供信息），因为它们增强了对反应扭曲（如假装好、印象管理）的抵抗力。用于为人事决策提供信息的FC评估分数的测量精度在实践中至关重要。目前的出版物报道了FC评估分数的不同类型的可靠性估计，而对最佳实践似乎缺乏共识。为了提供对FC可靠性报告的理解和结构，本研究系统地研究了基于Thurstonian IRT的FC评估分数的不同类型的可靠性估计方法：讨论了它们的理论差异，并通过一系列模拟和实证研究说明了它们的数值差异。通过这样做，本研究为评估基于IRT的FC评估分数的不同可靠性估计方法提供了实用指南。

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

Organizational Research Methods Multiple-

CiteScore

23.20

自引率

3.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.