Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Allameh Tabataba’i University

2 Allameh Tabataba’i University-Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

3 Allameh Tabataba'i University-FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to identify the optimum approach to analysis of epistemic data in measuring personality traits. For this purpose, MPLUS software and lavan software package simulate different formats of response scales, and two traditional scoring approaches and Thurston's IRT method were compared in some of the most important psychometric outcomes. Overall the findings of the study indicated that the Thurstonin IRT approach performs better than the traditional scoring approach in accurately estimating actual scores, criterion validity, locating a person on the attribute continuum. Also, the research findings showed that the average correlation between estimated scores and actual scores for all three correlation coefficients (0, 0.25 and 0.50) in Thurstonian Item Response Theory is higher than the scores obtained from the classical method; True for all three correlation coefficients, in Thurstonian Item Response Theory more than classical method scores and mean experimental reliability scores for correlation coefficients 0.25 and 0.5 with classical method are higher than scores obtained by Thurstonian IRT method, but for coefficient The mean correlation of the mean scores of the Turestonian IRT method is higher than the classical scores. The findings also showed that the difference between the two tests, both Classical and Trestonium IRT, was significant for both the 48 and 96 questions, and the correlation between estimated scores and actual scores in the Thursetonium IRT method was more than the classical method.

Keywords

Baron, H., 1996. Strength and limitations of ipsative measurement. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 69, 49-56.
Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965–973.
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2014). Modeling forced-choice response formats. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. Hughes (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing. John Wiley & Sons.
Dunlp, W.P., & Cornwell, J.M. (1994). Factor analysis of ipsative measures.
Journal Multivariate Behavioral Research. 29,115-126.
Gordon, L.V. 1976. “Survey of interpersonal values. Revised manual”. Chicago, IL: Science
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2013). A general response style factor: Evidence from a multi-ethnic study in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 794–800.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Brown, A. (2010). Item response modeling of paired comparison and
Meade, A. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77, 531-552.
Merk J., Schlotz W.,  Falter T. (2017). The Motivational Value Systems Questionnaire (MVSQ): Psychometric Analysis Using a Forced Choice Thurstonian IRT Model. Front Psychol. 8(1), 1-14.
Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443–461.
SHL. (2006). OPQ32 technical manual. Surrey, UK. Author.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & White, L. A. (2012). Adaptive testing with multidimensional pairwise preference items: Improving the efficiency of personality and other noncognitive assessments. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 463-487.
Tenopyr, M.L. (1988). Artifactual reliability of forced-choice scales. Journal of  Applied Psychology, 78, 749-751.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95