Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.
Andrew B Speer, Lauren J Wegmeyer, Andrew P Tenbrink, Angie Y Delacruz, Neil D Christiansen, Rouan M Salim
{"title":"Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.","authors":"Andrew B Speer, Lauren J Wegmeyer, Andrew P Tenbrink, Angie Y Delacruz, Neil D Christiansen, Rouan M Salim","doi":"10.1037/apl0001099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forced-choice (FC) personality assessments have shown potential in mitigating the effects of faking. Yet despite increased attention and usage, there exist gaps in understanding the psychometric properties of FC assessments, and particularly when compared to traditional single-stimulus (SS) measures. The present study conducted a series of meta-analyses comparing the psychometric properties of FC and SS assessments after placing them on an equal playing field-by restricting to only studies that examined matched assessments of each format, and thus, avoiding the extraneous confound of using comparisons from different contexts (Sackett, 2021). Matched FC and SS assessments were compared in terms of criterion-related validity and susceptibility to faking in terms of mean shifts and validity attenuation. Additionally, the correlation between FC and SS scores was examined to help establish construct validity evidence. Results showed that matched FC and SS scores exhibit strong correlations with one another (ρ = .69), though correlations weakened when the FC measure was faked (ρ = .59) versus when both measures were taken honestly (ρ = .73). Average scores increased from honest to faked samples for both FC (<i>d</i> = .41) and SS scores (<i>d</i> = .75), though the effect was more pronounced for SS measures and with larger effects for context-desirable traits (FC <i>d</i> = .61, SS <i>d</i> = .99). Criterion-related validity was similar between matched FC and SS measures overall. However, when considering validity in faking contexts, FC scores exhibited greater validity than SS measures. Thus, although FC measures are not completely immune to faking, they exhibit meaningful benefits over SS measures in contexts of faking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1812-1833"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001099","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Forced-choice (FC) personality assessments have shown potential in mitigating the effects of faking. Yet despite increased attention and usage, there exist gaps in understanding the psychometric properties of FC assessments, and particularly when compared to traditional single-stimulus (SS) measures. The present study conducted a series of meta-analyses comparing the psychometric properties of FC and SS assessments after placing them on an equal playing field-by restricting to only studies that examined matched assessments of each format, and thus, avoiding the extraneous confound of using comparisons from different contexts (Sackett, 2021). Matched FC and SS assessments were compared in terms of criterion-related validity and susceptibility to faking in terms of mean shifts and validity attenuation. Additionally, the correlation between FC and SS scores was examined to help establish construct validity evidence. Results showed that matched FC and SS scores exhibit strong correlations with one another (ρ = .69), though correlations weakened when the FC measure was faked (ρ = .59) versus when both measures were taken honestly (ρ = .73). Average scores increased from honest to faked samples for both FC (d = .41) and SS scores (d = .75), though the effect was more pronounced for SS measures and with larger effects for context-desirable traits (FC d = .61, SS d = .99). Criterion-related validity was similar between matched FC and SS measures overall. However, when considering validity in faking contexts, FC scores exhibited greater validity than SS measures. Thus, although FC measures are not completely immune to faking, they exhibit meaningful benefits over SS measures in contexts of faking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including:
1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses).
2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research.
3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
