Application of ideal point response model to personality scale

The present study examined whether ideal point response model is adequate for personality measurement scales by comparing the fits and predictive validities of ideal point response model and dominance response model. The analysis of data on a conscientiousness scale developed based on International Personality Item Pool showed that some of the items have bell-shape option response plot, which supports ideal point response model. However, both ideal point response and dominance response model fit the data similarly well. Predictive validity coefficients of conscientiousness scores based on each item response process model predicting academic achievement-related criteria were also similar to each other. The implications of the results were discussed in terms of development and scoring personality scales and the usage of personality scale scores.

keywords: 문항반응과정, 이상점 반응 모형, 우세과정 모형, 성격측정, 성실성, personality measurement, item response process, ideal point response model, dominance process model, conscientiousness, personality measurement, item response process, ideal point response model, dominance process model, conscientiousness

Reference

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performances. European Journal of Personality, 10, 337-352.

Brown, R. D., & Harvey, R. J. (2003, April). Detecting personality test faking with appropriateness measurement: Fact or fantasy? Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organization Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and Insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.

Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654-665.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual for the NEO Personality Inventory NEO-PI-R and NEO Five Factor Inventory NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080-1107.

Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2007). Using the FFM to conceptualize psychopathy: A test using a drug abusing sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 638-656.

Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., Tsien, S., Williams, B., & Mead, A. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-165.

10.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

11.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology, A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314.

12.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality, The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

13.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Robert, H., Michael, A. C., Robert, C. C., & Harrison, G. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

14.

Hampson, S. E., Andrews, J. A., Barckley, M., Lichtenstein, E. & Lee, M. E. (2000). Conscientiousness, perceived risk, and risk-reduction behaviors, A preliminary study. Health Psychology, 19, 496-500.

15.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance, The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

16.

International Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences.. http,//ipip.ori.org/.

17.

Lee, S., & Klein, H. (2002). Relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1175-1182.

18.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-53.

19.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

20.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50, 741 -749,

21.

Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.

22.

Reckase, M. D. (1996). Test construction in the 1990s, Recent approaches every psychologist should know. Psychological Assessment, 8, 354-359.

23.

Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7, 347-364.

24.

Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45-58.

25.

Roberts, J. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (1996). A unidimensional item response model for unfolding responses from a graded disagree -agree response scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 231-255.

26.

Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J. R., & Laughlin, J. E. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Education and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211-233.

27.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

28.

Stark, S. (2001). MODFIT: A computer program for model-data fit. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign.

29.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment, Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25-39.

30.

Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2004). Smoking and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Addiction, 99, 472-481.

31.

Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide—Version 6. Chicago, Scientific Software International.

32.

Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-554.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.27 No.3

Application of ideal point response model to personality scale

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General