바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.27 No.3
Citation Share

성격검사문항에 대한 이상점 반응 모형의 적용

Application of ideal point response model to personality scale

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2008, v.27 no.3, pp.839-857
이선희 (충남대학교)
이선희. (2008). 성격검사문항에 대한 이상점 반응 모형의 적용. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 27(3), 839-857.
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 문항반응과정에 대한 이상점 반응(ideal point response) 모형과 우세과정(dominance process) 모형을 5점 척도로 측정된 성실성 척도에 적용해 봄으로써 다양한 성격 측정 도구들의 문항개발과 채점방식이 암묵적으로 가정하고 있는 문항반응과정에 대한 근본적인 가정을 검증하고자 하였다. 국제 성격문항집(International Personality Item Pool)의 문항들을 기초로 본 연구에서 개발한 성실성 척도에 대한 응답 자료를 문항반응이론 방법으로 분석한 결과, 대체로 모든 문항에서 우세과정 모형과 이상점 반응 모형의 모형적합도가 유사하게 좋게 나타났지만, 우세과정 모형보다는 이상점 반응모형을 지지하는 옵션반응곡선을 나타내는 문항들도 관찰되었다. 또한 이상점 과정 모형과 우세 과정 모형을 각각 채점에 적용하여 산출된 점수와 학업성취관련 준거변인들과의 상관관계의 정도를 비교한 결과 두 모형에서 계산된 성실성 점수가 거의 유사한 수준의 예측타당도를 보였다. 이러한 결과가 성격 문항의 개발과 채점, 그리고 성격점수의 이용 목적과 관련하여 어떠한 함의를 가지는 지 논의하였다.

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

Abstract

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

참고문헌

1.

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

2.

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

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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

8.

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.

9.

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.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책