Comparison between dominance process model and ideal point response model for personality assesment

Main Article Content

DongGun Park
MyungOk Choi
WonSun Lee
HyeMin Lee
JunHee Lee

Abstract

The present study investigated the utilities of two types of item response process models(dominance model and ideal point model) for personality item parameter estimation and scoring. The authors developed scales for four personality traits(achievement, fairness, cooperation and honesty) using classical test theory, dominance item response theory(IRT) method, and ideal point IRT method and compared the methods in terms of model-data fit, information and criterion validity. Results show that the fit of ideal point IRT model was better than that of dominance IRT model, but the difference between the fit of two models was very slight. The test information functions of ideal point IRT model and dominance IRT model for honesty and cooperation scales were very similar. The criterion-related validity based on individual ability estimates and grades was not significant for the three methods but the validity for the ideal point method is not better than dominant IRT model. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
ParkD., ChoiM., LeeW., LeeH., & LeeJ. (2012). Comparison between dominance process model and ideal point response model for personality assesment. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 421-452. Retrieved from https://journal.ksiop.or.kr/index.php/KJIOP/article/view/267
Section
Empirical Articles
Author Biographies

DongGun Park, Korea University

Department of Psychology

MyungOk Choi, Korea University

Department of Psychology

WonSun Lee, Korea University

Department of Psychology

HyeMin Lee, Korea University

Department of Psychology

JunHee Lee, Korea University

Department of Psychology

Funding data

References

김명소, 이헌주 (2006). 성격검사의 형식이 응답왜곡(faking)에 미치는 효과: Normative 형식과 ipsative 형식의 비교. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 19(3), 371-393.
안여명, 유태용 (2010). 개인 및 팀 수준에서 성격과 적응수행 간의 관계: 일반적 자기효능감의 매개효과와 변혁적 리더십의 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 23(1), 155-179.
유태용 (2007). 성격의 6요인(HEXACO) 모델에 의한 성격특성과 조직구성원 직무수행 간의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 20(3), 283-314.
유태용, 김명헌, 이도형 (1995). 5요인 성격검사의 개발 및 타당화 연구. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 10(1), 85-102.
유태용, 민병모 (2001). 다양한 장면에서 수행을 예측하기 위한 5요인 성격모델의 사용가능성과 한계: 성격요인과 수행 간의 관계에 대한 통합분석. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 14(2), 115-134.
이선희 (2008). 성격검사문항에 대한 이상점 반응 모형의 적용. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 27(3), 839-857.
이은정, 박동건 (2003). 성격 검사의 응답왜곡 탐지: 직무 바람직성의 개념화 및 선발 결정에의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 16(2), 121-151.
황지희 (2007). 대학생의 성취목표지향성과 학습전략 및 학업성취의 관계. 연세대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.
Andrich, D. (1996). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 347-365.
Barclay, J. E., & Weaver, H. B. (1962). Comparative reliabilities and ease of construction of Thurstone and Likert attitude scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 109- 120.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2010). Issues That Should Not Be Overlooked in the Dominance Versus Ideal Point Controversy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 489- 493.
Carter, N. T., & Dalal, D. K. (2010). An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 743-748.
Carter, N. T., Lake, C. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Toward Understanding the Psychology of Unfolding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 511-514.
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.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing Personality Scales Under the Assumptions of an Ideal Point Response Process: Toward Increasing the Flexibility of Personality Measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88-06.
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.
Dalal, D, K., Withrow, S., Gibby, R. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Six Questions That Practitioners (Might) Have About Ideal Point Response Process Items. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 498-501.
Davison, M. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometric, 42, 523- 548.
Drasgow, F., & Kang, T. (1984). Statistical power of differential validity and differential prediction analyses for detecting measurement nonequivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 498-508.
Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., Tsien, S., Williams, B. A., & Mead, A. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-165.
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 Years After Likert: Thurstone Was Right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 515-520.
Edwards, A. L., & Kenney, K. C. (1946). A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 72-83.
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265-287.
Ellis, B. B., Becker, P.,, & Kimmel, H. D. (1993). An item response theory evaluation of an English version of the Trier Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 133-148.
Goldberg, L. R. (1997). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, 7(pp.7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, R. Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality Measurement and employment decision: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477.
Hough, L. M., & Scheider, R. J. (1996). The frontiers of I/O Personality Research. In K. R. Murphy(Ed.), Individual differences & behavior in organizations(pp.31-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and Job performance, The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869- 879.
International Personality Item Pool(2001). http:// ipip. ori. org/
Lake, C. J., & Zichar, M. J. (2010). Respondent and test delivery characteristics that induce item unfolding. Unpublished manuscript.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25-39.
Marcus Crede. (2010). Two Caveats for the Use of Ideal Point Items: Discrepancies and Bivariate Constructs. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 494-497.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139-157.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins' circumflex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.
Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1991). BILOG user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
Nunnally, J. C., & Berbstein, L. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
Oswald, D., & Schell, K. L. (2010). Developing and Scaling Personality Measures: Thurstone Was Right-But So Far, Likert Was Not Wrong. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 481-484.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Reise, S. P. (2010). Thurstone Might Have Been Right About Attitudes, but Drasgow, Chernyshenko, and Stark Fail to Make the Case for Personality Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 485-488.
Reise, S. P., & & Henson, J. M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7, 347-364.
Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45-58.
Roberts, J. S. (2004). A computer program fot GGUM 2004: Technical reference manual.
Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J. R., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3-32.
Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measure- ment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211-233.
Ross, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644.
Rouse, S. V., Finger, M. S., & Butcher, J. M. (1999). Advances in clinical personality measurement: An item response theory analysis of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 282-307.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2005). Validation of computerized adaptive version of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Psychological assessment, 17, 28-43.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, Lee, & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943- 953.
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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25-39.
Stark, S. (2008). MODFIT: A computer program for model-data fit. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign.
Tay, L., Drasgow, F., James, R., & Williams, B. (2009). Fitting Measurement Models to Vocational Interest Data: Are Dominance Models Ideal? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1287-1394.
Tay, L., Ali, U. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2011). Fitting IRT Models to Dichotomous and Polytomous Data: Assessing the Relative Model-Data Fit of Ideal Point and Dominance Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(4), 280-295.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Personnel Psychology, 44. 703-742.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitude can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33. 529-554.
Waples, C. J., Weyhrauch, W. S., Connell, A. R., & Culbertson, S. S. (2010). Questionable Defeats and Discounted Victories for Likert Rating Scales. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 477-480.
Zickar, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using approproatemess measurement. Applied psychological Measurement, 20, 71-87.

Most read articles by the same author(s)