Criterion Validity is Maintained When Items Are Evaluatively Neutralized: Evidence from A Full–Scale Five

Abstract

The original version and an evaluatively neutralized version (with items rephrased to reduce popularity) of a personality inventory were compared. The results revealed (i) similar criterion validity across three different sets of self–rated behaviours, (ii) stronger relations to the rated social desirability of criteria for the original version and (iii) less correlation between factors for the neutralized version. We take the results to indicate that evaluative neutralization is a viable technique for reducing social desirability in self–ratings. Implications for test construction are discussed. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

social desirability personality assessment five-factor model criterion validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2005) Honesty–humility, the Big Five, and the five–factor model. Journal of Personality, 73, 1321–1353.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, Goldberg

L. R.

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2009) Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91. doi: 10.1177/1088868309338467

Bäckström

(2007) Higher–order factors in a five–factor personality inventory and its relation to social desirability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 63–70 doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.63

Bäckström

, & Björklund

(2013) Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 152–159. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12015

Bäckström

, Björklund

, & Larsson

M. R.

(2009) Five–factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335–344. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013

Bäckström

, Björklund

, & Larsson

M. R.

(2012) Social desirability in personality assessment: Outline of a model to explain individual differences. In Ziegler

, MacCann

, & Roberts

(Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 201–213). New York: Oxford University Press.

Block

(1995) A contrarian view of the five–factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187

Bollen

, & Lennox

(1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305

Borkenau

, & Ostendorf

(1989) Descriptive consistency and social desirability in self– and peer reports. European Journal of Personality, 3, 31–45. doi: 10.1002/per.2410030105

10.

Botwin

M. D.

, & Buss

D. M.

(1989) Structure of act–report data: Is the five–factor model of personality recaptured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 988–1001. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.6.988

11.

Buss

A. H.

(1959) The effect of item style on social desirability and frequency of endorsement. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 510–513. doi: 10.1037/h0043019

12.

Buss

D. M.

, & Craik

K. H.

(1983) The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.2.105

13.

Costa

P. T.

, & McCrae

R. R.

(1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO five–factor inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

14.

Digman

J. M.

(1997) Higher–order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246

15.

Edwards

A. L.

(1953) The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90–93. doi: 10.1037/h0058073

16.

Edwards

A. L.

(1970) The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

17.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990) An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

18.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992) The development of markers for the Big–Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

19.

Goldberg

L. R.

(2010) Personality, demographics, and self–reported behavioral acts: The development of Avocational Interest Scales from estimates of the amount of time spent in interest–related activities. In Agnew

C. R.

, Carlston

D. E.

, Graziano

W.G.

, & Kelly

J. R.

(Eds.), Then a miracle occurs (pp. 205–226). New York: Oxford University Press.

20.

Goldberg

L. R.

, Johnson

J. A.

, Eber

H. W.

, Hogan

, Ashton

M. C.

, Cloninger

C. R.

, & Gough

H. G.

(2006) The international personality item pool and the future of public–domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

21.

Haigler

E. D.

, & Widiger

T. A.

(2001) Experimental manipulation of NEO–PI–R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339–358. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7702_14

22.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

, de Raad

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(1992) Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146

23.

Jackson

D. N.

(1984) Personality research form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

24.

Konstabel

, Aavik

, & Allik

(2006) Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549–566. doi: 10.1002/per.593

25.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2004) Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

26.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

T. P.

Jr. (1987) Validation of the five–factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

27.

Musek

(2007) A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003

28.

Nederhof

A. J.

(1985) Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420150303

29.

Paulhus

, & Vazire

(2007) The self–report method. In Robins

R.W.

, & Krueger

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). New York: Guildford.

30.

Paunonen

S. V.

(1998) Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.538

31.

Paunonen

S. V.

(2003) Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 411–422. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411

32.

Paunonen

S. V.

, & LeBel

E. P.

(2012) Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 158–175. doi: 10.1037/a0028165

33.

Peabody

(1967) Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 1–18. doi: 10.1037/h0025230

34.

Pettersson

, & Turkheimer

(2010) Item selection, evaluation, and simple structure in personality data. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 407–420. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.002

35.

Rushton

J. P.

, Bons

T. A.

, & Hur

Y.–M.

(2008) The genetics and evolution of the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1173–1185. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.002

36.

Saucier

(1994) Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 141–154. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.141

37.

Spector

P. E.

(2012) Self–reports for employee selection. In Schmitt

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 443–461). New York: Oxford University Press.

38.

Wahler

H. J.

(1965) Item popularity and social desirability in the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 439–445. doi: 10.1037/h0022755

Criterion Validity is Maintained When Items Are Evaluatively Neutralized: Evidence from A Full–Scale Five–Factor Model Inventory

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References