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 (M_r = .18, M_multipleR = .35) and then by instruction contextualization only (M_r = .14, M_multipleR = .31). The original scales with no contextualization showed the lowest levels of criterion-related validity (M_r = .10, M_multipleR = .27). Contextualization also increased the intercorrelations of personality dimensions. These patterns were well replicated across the two forced-choice scales.