Forced-choice (FC) measures are becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to single-statement (SS) measures. However, to ensure the practical usefulness of an FC measure, it is crucial to address the tension between psychometric properties and faking resistance by balancing mixed keying and social desirability matching. It is currently unknown from an empirical perspective whether the two design criteria can be reconciled, and how they impact respondent reactions. By conducting a two-wave experimental design, we constructed four FC measures with varying degrees of mixed-keying and social desirability matching from the same statement pool and investigated their differences in terms of psychometric properties, faking resistance, and respondent reactions. Results showed that all FC measures demonstrated comparable reliability and induced similar respondent reactions. Forced-choice measures with stricter social desirability matching were more faking resistant, while FC measures with more mixed keyed blocks had higher convergent validity with the SS measure and displayed similar discriminant and criterion-related validity profiles as the SS benchmark. More importantly, we found that it is possible to strike a balance between social desirability matching and mixed keying, such that FC measures can have adequate psychometric properties and faking resistance. A seven-step recommendation and a tutorial based on the autoFC R package were provided to help readers construct their own FC measures.
AnglimJ.HorwoodS.SmillieL. D.MarreroR. J.WoodJ. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
2.
AnglimJ.MorseG.De VriesR. E.MacCannC.MartyA. (2017). Comparing job applicants to non–applicants using an item–level bifactor model on the HEXACO personality inventory. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2120
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
4.
BoyceA. S.ConwayJ. S.CaputoP. M. (2015). ADEPT-15 technical documentation: Development and validation of Aon Hewitt’s Personality Model and Adaptive Employee Personality Test (ADEPT-15). Aon Hewitt.
5.
BrennanR. L.PredigerD. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
BrownA.BartramD. (2009). Doing less but getting more: Improving forced-choice measures with IRT. In: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference; April 2–4, 2009; New Orleans. Retrieved from http://kar.kent.ac.uk/44788/.
8.
BrownA.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410375112
9.
BrownA.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030641
10.
BrownA.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2018). Ordinal factor analysis of Graded-Preference Questionnaire Data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392247
11.
BürknerP. C. (2019). thurstonianIRT: Thurstonian IRT models in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(42), 1662–1663. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01662
BürknerP. C.SchulteN.HollingH. (2019). On the statistical and practical limitations of Thurstonian IRT models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(5), 827–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419832063
14.
CaiL. (2010). High-dimensional exploratory item factor analysis by a Metropolis-Hastings Robbins–Monro algorithm. Psychometrika, 75(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9136-x
15.
CaoM.DrasgowF. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
16.
CaoM.DrasgowF.ChoS. (2015). Developing ideal intermediate personality items for the ideal point model. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555993
17.
CarloG.OkunM. A.KnightG. P.de GuzmanM. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012
18.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.186D37/jss.v048.i06
19.
ChanD.SchmittN.SaccoJ. M.DeShonR. P. (1998). Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.471
20.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.PrewettM. S.GrayA. A.StilsonF. R.TuttleM. D. (2009). Normative scoring of multidimensional pairwise preference personality scales using IRT: Empirical comparisons with other formats. Human Performance, 22(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280902743303
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
23.
ConverseP. D.OswaldF. L.ImusA.HedricksC.RoyR.ButeraH. (2008). Comparing personality test formats and warnings: Effects on criterion-related validity and test-taker reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00420.x
24.
CottrellJ. M.NewmanD. A.RoismanG. I. (2015). Explaining the black-white gap in cognitive test scores: Toward a theory of adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1713–1736. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000020
25.
CowanN. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277
26.
DalalD. K.ZhuX. S.RangelB.BoyceA. S.LobeneE. (2021). Improving applicant reactions to forced-choice personality measurement: Interventions to reduce threats to test takers’ self-concepts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09655-6
27.
DienerE. D.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
28.
DrasgowF.StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S.NyeC. D.HulinC. L.WhiteL. A. (2012). Development of the tailored adaptive personality assessment system (TAPAS) to support army personnel selection and classification decisions. Drasgow Consulting Group.
29.
EdwardsA. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden.
30.
FoxS.SpectorP. E.BruursemaK.KesslerS.GohA. (2007). Necessity is the mother of behavior: Organizational constraints, CWB and OCB. In Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
31.
FrickS. (2022). Modeling faking in the multidimensional forced-choice format: the faking mixture model. Psychometrika, 87(2), 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09818-6
32.
FrickS.BrownA.WetzelE. (2023). Investigating the normativity of trait estimates from multidimensional forced-choice data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 58(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2021.1938960
33.
FuechtenhansM.BrownA. (2022). How do applicants fake? A response process model of faking on multidimensional forced-choice personality assessments. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12409
34.
FurrR. M. (2010). The double-entry intraclass correlation as an index of profile similarity: Meaning, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903379134
35.
GwetK. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600
36.
GwetK. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
37.
HalfordG. S.CowanN.AndrewsG. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.001
38.
HarmsP. D.RobertsB. W.WoodD. (2007). Who shall lead? An integrative personality approach to the study of the antecedents of status in informal social organizations. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.001
39.
HarrisA. M.McMillanJ. T.CarterN. T. (2021). Test-taker reactions to ideal point measures of personality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(3), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09682-8
40.
HausknechtJ. P.DayD. V.ThomasS. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x
41.
HeY.DonnellanM. B.MendozaA. M. (2019). Five-factor personality domains and job performance: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103848
42.
HighhouseS.LievensF.SinarE. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258403
43.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
44.
HommelB. E. (2023). Expanding the methodological toolbox: Machine-based item desirability ratings as an alternative to human-based ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 213, 112307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112307
45.
HuJ.ConnellyB. S. (2021). Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subjects studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3-4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12338
46.
HughesA. W.DunlopP. D.HoltropD.WeeS. (2021). Spotting the “ideal” personality response: Effects of item matching in forced choice measures for personnel selection. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 20(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000267
47.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
48.
JonesK. S.NewmanD. A.SuR.RoundsJ. (2022). Vocational interests and adverse impact: How attraction and selection on vocational interests relate to adverse impact potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000893
49.
JudgeT. A.HellerD.MountM. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
50.
KieftenbeldV.NatesanP. (2012). Recovery of graded response model parameters: A comparison of marginal maximum likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(5), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612446170
51.
KlugerA. N.RothsteinH. R. (1993). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230391
52.
KreitchmannR. S.AbadF. J.PonsodaV.NietoM. D.MorilloD. (2019). Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of Likert items. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
53.
KristensenT. S.BorritzM.VilladsenE.ChristensenK. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720
54.
LambertL. S.NewmanD. A. (2022). Construct development and validation in three practical steps: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
55.
LeeH.SmithW. Z. (2020). Fit indices for measurement invariance tests in the Thurstonian IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 44(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621619893785
56.
LeeP.JooS. H.LeeS. (2019). Examining stability of personality profile solutions between Likert-type and multidimensional forced choice measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.022
57.
LeeP.JooS. H.StarkS. (2021). Detecting DIF in multidimensional forced-choice measures using the Thurstonian item response theory model. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 739–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120959822
58.
LeeP.JooS. H.StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S. (2019). GGUM-RANK statement and person parameter estimation with multidimensional forced choice triplets. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618768294
59.
LeeP.JooS. H.ZhouS.SonM. (2022). Investigating the impact of negatively keyed statements on multidimensional forced-choice personality measures: A comparison of partially ipsative and IRT scoring methods. Personality and Individual Differences, 191, 111555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111555
60.
LeeY.BerryC. M.Gonzalez-MuléE. (2019). The importance of being humble: A meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty-humility and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1535. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000421
61.
LiM.SunT.ZhangB. (2022). autoFC: An R package for automatic item pairing in forced-choice test construction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 46(1), 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216211051726
62.
LiZ.ZhangB.CaoM.TayL. (2021). Accounting for item response process and response styles using the Unfolding Item Response Tree (UIRTree) model. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf. io/8w36e.
63.
LinY. (2022). Reliability estimates for IRT-based forced-choice assessment scores. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428121999086
64.
LinY.BrownA. (2017). Influence of context on item parameters in forced-choice personality assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416646162
65.
LopezF. J.HouN.FanJ. (2019). Reducing faking on personality tests: Testing a new faking-mitigation procedure in a US job applicant sample. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(4), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12265
66.
MacanT. H.AvedonM. J.PaeseM.SmithD. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01573.x
67.
McCarthyJ. M.BauerT. N.TruxilloD. M.AndersonN. R.CostaA. C.AhmedS. M. (2017). Applicant perspectives during selection: A review addressing “So what?,” “What’s new?,” and “Where to next?”. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1693–1725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316681846
68.
McCloyR. A.HeggestadE. D.ReeveC. L. (2005). A silk purse from the sow's ear: Retrieving normative information from multidimensional forced-choice items. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 222–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105275374
69.
MorilloD.AbadF. J.KreitchmannR. S.LeenenI.HontangasP.PonsodaV. (2019). The journey from Likert to forced-choice questionnaires: Evidence of the invariance of item parameters. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 35(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a11
70.
MorilloD.PonsodaV.LeenenI.AbadF. J.HontangasP. (2016). Comparing CFA and Bayesian estimations of forced-choice questionnaires with paired dominance items. International Test Commission (ITC) 2016 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
71.
MunyonT. P.CarnesA. M.LyonsL. M.ZettlerI. (2020). All about the money? Exploring antecedents and consequences for a brief measure of perceived financial security. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000162
72.
NaemiB.SeybertJ.RobbinsS.KyllonenP. (2014). Examining the WorkFORCE™ assessment for job fit and core capabilities of FACETS™. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(2), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12040
73.
NgV.LeeP.HoM. H. R.KuykendallL.StarkS.TayL. (2021). The development and validation of a multidimensional forced-choice format character measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1739056
74.
NyeC. D.SuR.RoundsJ.DrasgowF. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612449021
75.
PavlovG. (2022). Comparing different approaches for obtaining item desirability ratings [Poster]. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, United States.
76.
PavlovG.ShiD.Maydeu-OlivaresA.FairchildA. (2022). Item desirability matching in forced-choice test construction. Personality and Individual Differences, 183, 111114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111114
77.
PletzerJ. L.OostromJ. K.BentvelzenM.de VriesR. E. (2020). Comparing domain-and facet-level relations of the HEXACO personality model with workplace deviance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109539
78.
PletzerJ. L.OostromJ. K.de VriesR. E. (2021). HEXACO personality and organizational citizenship behavior: A domain-and facet-level meta-analysis. Human Performance, 34(2), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2021.1891072
79.
PletzerJ. L.ThielmannI.ZettlerI. (2023). Who is healthier? A meta-analysis of the relations between the HEXACO personality domains and health outcomes. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231174574
80.
PlieningerH.HeckD. W. (2018). A new model for acquiescence at the interface of psychometrics and cognitive psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(5), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1469966
81.
QiuX. L.WangW. C. (2021). Assessment of differential statement functioning in ipsative tests with multidimensional forced-choice items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 45(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621620965739
82.
RoodtG. (2004). Turnover intentions. Unpublished document: University of Johannesburg Johannesburg, South Africa.
83.
SalgadoJ. F.AndersonN.TaurizG. (2015). The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 797–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12098
84.
SamejimaF. (1997). Graded Response Model. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_5
85.
SassR.FrickS.ReipsU. D.WetzelE. (2020). Taking the test taker’s perspective: Response process and test motivation in multidimensional forced-choice versus rating scale instruments. Assessment, 27(3), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118762049
86.
SchatA. C.KellowayE. K.DesmaraisS. (2005). The Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ): construct validation of a self-report scale of somatic symptoms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.363
87.
SchreiberA.MarcusB. (2020). The place of the “Dark Triad” in general models of personality: Some meta-analytic clarification. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 1021–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000299
88.
SchulteN.HollingH.BürknerP. C. (2021). Can high-dimensional questionnaires resolve the ipsativity issue of forced-choice response formats?Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420934861
SpectorP. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00929796
92.
SpectorP. E.FoxS.PenneyL. M.BruursemaK.GohA.KesslerS. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
93.
SpeerA. B.PerrottaJ.JacobsR. R. (2023). Supervised construct scoring to reduce personality assessment length: A field study and introduction to the short 10. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428122114569
94.
StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S.DrasgowF. (2005). An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: The multi-unidimensional pairwise-preference model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621604273988
95.
StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S.DrasgowF.WhiteL. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112444611
96.
SunT.ZhangB.CaoM.DrasgowF. (2022). Faking detection improved: Adopting a Likert item response process tree model. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 490–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904
97.
SunT.ZhangB.PhanW. M. J.DrasgowF.RobertsB. (2019, July). “Meh!”: Examining Midpoint Endorsement Habitude (MEH) in survey research. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2019, pp. 16421). Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.227
98.
SylvaH.MolS. T. (2009). E-Recruitment: A study into applicant perceptions of an online application system. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00473.x
99.
TayL.NgV. (2018). Ideal point modeling of non-cognitive constructs: Review and recommendations for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 2423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02423
100.
TonidandelS.QuiñonesM. A.AdamsA. A. (2002). Computer-adaptive testing: The impact of test characteristics on perceived performance and test takers’ reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.320
101.
TuN.ZhangB.AngraveL.SunT. (2021). bmggum: An R package for Bayesian estimation of the multidimensional generalized graded unfolding model with covariates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 45(7-8), 553–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216211040488
102.
TuN.ZhangB.AngraveL.SunT.NeumanM. (2023). Estimating the multidimensional generalized graded unfolding model with covariates using a bayesian approach. Journal of Intelligence, 11(8), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080163
103.
Van IddekingeC. H.LievensF.SackettP. R. (2023). Personnel selection: A review of ways to maximize validity, diversity, and the applicant experience. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00420.x
104.
VasilopoulosN. L.CucinaJ. M.DyominaN. V.MorewitzC. L.ReillyR. R. (2006). Forced-choice personality tests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability?Human Performance, 19(3), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1903_1
105.
WaltonK. E.CherkasovaL.RobertsR. D. (2020). On the validity of forced choice scores derived from the Thurstonian item response theory model. Assessment, 27(4), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119843585
106.
WangW. C.WuS. L. (2016). Confirmatory multidimensional IRT unfolding models for graded-response items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621615602855
107.
WetzelE.FrickS. (2020). Comparing the validity of trait estimates from the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format. Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000781
108.
WetzelE.FrickS.BrownA. (2021). Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking. Psychological Assessment, 33(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000971
109.
WiernikB. M.DahlkeJ. A. (2020). Obtaining unbiased results in meta-analysis: The importance of correcting for statistical artifacts. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(1), 94–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919885611
110.
WilliamsL. J.AndersonS. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
111.
WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
112.
ZettlerI.ThielmannI.HilbigB. E.MoshagenM. (2020). The nomological net of the HEXACO model of personality: A large-scale meta-analytic investigation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 723–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895036
113.
ZhangB.CaoM.TayL.LuoJ.DrasgowF. (2020). Examining the item response process to personality measures in high-stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12353
114.
ZhangB.LuoJ.LiJ. (2023). Moving beyond Likert and traditional forced-choice scales: A comprehensive investigation of the graded forced-choice format. Multivariate Behavioral Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682
115.
ZhangB.SunT.DrasgowF.ChernyshenkoO. S.NyeC. D.StarkS.WhiteL. A. (2020). Though forced, still valid: Psychometric equivalence of forced-choice and single-statement measures. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836486
116.
ZhangB.TuN.AngraveL.ZhangS.SunT.TayL.LiJ. (2023). The Generalized Thurstonian Unfolding Model (GTUM): Advancing the modeling of forced-choice data. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442812312104
117.
ZimmermanR. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 309–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
