{"title":"情境化程度越高越有效：情境策略对强制选择测量的影响","authors":"Lingyue Li, Bo Zhang, Tianjun Sun, Fritz Drasgow","doi":"10.1007/s10869-024-09983-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous studies have shown that contextualization can improve the reliability and criterion-related validity of single-statement personality measures. However, it is unknown whether contextualization has similar effects on forced-choice measures of personality. If so, what type of contextualization is the most effective? The present study provides the first empirical examination of the effects of three types of contextualization on the reliability and criterion-related validity of forced-choice personality measures. Employing an experimental design, we obtained and cross-validated results using two forced-choice personality measures. Results showed that while contextualization has no systematic effect on the reliability of forced-choice scores, it improves their criterion-related validity substantially. Specifically, contextualization of both the statements and instructions yielded the highest levels of criterion-related validity for work-related outcomes, with an average validity coefficient of .18 and an average multiple correlation coefficient of .40 across two measures, followed by statement contextualization only (M<sub>r</sub> = .18, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .35) and then by instruction contextualization only (M<sub>r</sub> = .14, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .31). The original scales with no contextualization showed the lowest levels of criterion-related validity (M<sub>r</sub> = .10, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .27). Contextualization also increased the intercorrelations of personality dimensions. These patterns were well replicated across the two forced-choice scales.</p>","PeriodicalId":48254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business and Psychology","volume":"172 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The More Contextualized, the More Valid: Effects of Contextualization Strategies on Forced-choice Measurement\",\"authors\":\"Lingyue Li, Bo Zhang, Tianjun Sun, Fritz Drasgow\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10869-024-09983-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Previous studies have shown that contextualization can improve the reliability and criterion-related validity of single-statement personality measures. However, it is unknown whether contextualization has similar effects on forced-choice measures of personality. If so, what type of contextualization is the most effective? The present study provides the first empirical examination of the effects of three types of contextualization on the reliability and criterion-related validity of forced-choice personality measures. Employing an experimental design, we obtained and cross-validated results using two forced-choice personality measures. Results showed that while contextualization has no systematic effect on the reliability of forced-choice scores, it improves their criterion-related validity substantially. Specifically, contextualization of both the statements and instructions yielded the highest levels of criterion-related validity for work-related outcomes, with an average validity coefficient of .18 and an average multiple correlation coefficient of .40 across two measures, followed by statement contextualization only (M<sub>r</sub> = .18, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .35) and then by instruction contextualization only (M<sub>r</sub> = .14, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .31). The original scales with no contextualization showed the lowest levels of criterion-related validity (M<sub>r</sub> = .10, M<sub>multipleR</sub> = .27). Contextualization also increased the intercorrelations of personality dimensions. These patterns were well replicated across the two forced-choice scales.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business and Psychology\",\"volume\":\"172 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business and Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09983-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business and Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09983-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The More Contextualized, the More Valid: Effects of Contextualization Strategies on Forced-choice Measurement
Previous studies have shown that contextualization can improve the reliability and criterion-related validity of single-statement personality measures. However, it is unknown whether contextualization has similar effects on forced-choice measures of personality. If so, what type of contextualization is the most effective? The present study provides the first empirical examination of the effects of three types of contextualization on the reliability and criterion-related validity of forced-choice personality measures. Employing an experimental design, we obtained and cross-validated results using two forced-choice personality measures. Results showed that while contextualization has no systematic effect on the reliability of forced-choice scores, it improves their criterion-related validity substantially. Specifically, contextualization of both the statements and instructions yielded the highest levels of criterion-related validity for work-related outcomes, with an average validity coefficient of .18 and an average multiple correlation coefficient of .40 across two measures, followed by statement contextualization only (Mr = .18, MmultipleR = .35) and then by instruction contextualization only (Mr = .14, MmultipleR = .31). The original scales with no contextualization showed the lowest levels of criterion-related validity (Mr = .10, MmultipleR = .27). Contextualization also increased the intercorrelations of personality dimensions. These patterns were well replicated across the two forced-choice scales.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Business and Psychology (JBP) is an international outlet publishing high quality research designed to advance organizational science and practice. Since its inception in 1986, the journal has published impactful scholarship in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior, Human Resources Management, Work Psychology, Occupational Psychology, and Vocational Psychology.
Typical subject matters include
Team processes and effectiveness
Customer service and satisfaction
Employee recruitment, selection, and promotion
Employee engagement and withdrawal
Organizational culture and climate
Training, development and coaching
Mentoring and socialization
Performance management, appraisal and feedback
Workplace diversity
Leadership
Workplace health, stress, and safety
Employee attitudes and satisfaction
Careers and retirement
Organizational communication
Technology and work
Employee motivation and job design
Organizational change and development
Employee citizenship and deviance
Organizational effectiveness
Work-nonwork/work-family
Rigorous quantitative, qualitative, field-based, and lab-based empirical studies are welcome. Interdisciplinary scholarship is valued and encouraged. Submitted manuscripts should be well-grounded conceptually and make meaningful contributions to scientific understandingsand/or the advancement of science-based practice.
The Journal of Business and Psychology is
- A high quality/impactful outlet for organizational science research
- A journal dedicated to bridging the science/practice divide
- A journal striving to create interdisciplinary connections
For details on submitting manuscripts, please read the author guidelines found in the far right menu.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
