Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of Likert items

Schames Kreitchmann, Rodrigo, Abad, Francisco J., Ponsoda, Vicente, Nieto, María Dolores y Morillo, Daniel . (2019) Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of Likert items. Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10: 02309

Ficheros (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your e-spacio credentials)
Nombre Descripción Tipo MIME Size
SCHAMES_KREITCHMANN_Rodrigo_Controlling_for.pdf SCHAMES_KREITCHMANN_Rodrigo_Controlling_for.pdf application/pdf 307.03KB

Título Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of Likert items
Autor(es) Schames Kreitchmann, Rodrigo
Abad, Francisco J.
Ponsoda, Vicente
Nieto, María Dolores
Morillo, Daniel
Materia(s) Psicología
Abstract One important problem in the measurement of non-cognitive characteristics such as personality traits and attitudes is that it has traditionally been made through Likert scales, which are susceptible to response biases such as social desirability (SDR) and acquiescent (ACQ) responding. Given the variability of these response styles in the population, ignoring their possible effects on the scores may compromise the fairness and the validity of the assessments. Also, response-style-induced errors of measurement can affect the reliability estimates and overestimate convergent validity by correlating higher with other Likert-scale-based measures. Conversely, it can attenuate the predictive power over non-Likert-based indicators, given that the scores contain more errors. This study compares the validity of the Big Five personality scores obtained: (1) ignoring the SDR and ACQ in graded-scale items (GSQ), (2) accounting for SDR and ACQ with a compensatory IRT model, and (3) using forced-choice blocks with a multi-unidimensional pairwise preference model (MUPP) variant for dominance items. The overall results suggest that ignoring SDR and ACQ offered the worst validity evidence, with a higher correlation between personality and SDR scores. The two remaining strategies have their own advantages and disadvantages. The results from the empirical reliability and the convergent validity analysis indicate that when modeling social desirability with graded-scale items, the SDR factor apparently captures part of the variance of the Agreeableness factor. On the other hand, the correlation between the corrected GSQ-based Openness to Experience scores, and the University Access Examination grades was higher than the one with the uncorrected GSQ-based scores, and considerably higher than that using the estimates from the forced-choice data. Conversely, the criterion-related validity of the Forced Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) scores was similar to the results found in meta-analytic studies, correlating higher with Conscientiousness. Nonetheless, the FCQ-scores had considerably lower reliabilities and would demand administering more blocks. Finally, the results are discussed, and some notes are provided for the treatment of SDR and ACQ in future studies.
Palabras clave graded-scale
forced-choice
ipsative
social desirability
acquiescence
personality
Big Five
item response theory
Editor(es) Frontiers Media
Fecha 2019-10-15
Formato application/pdf
Identificador bibliuned:DptoMCC-FPSI-Articulos-Rschames-0006
http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/view/bibliuned:DptoMCC-FPSI-Articulos-Rschames-0006
DOI - identifier https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
ISSN - identifier 1664-1078
Nombre de la revista Frontiers in Psychology
Número de Volumen 10
Publicado en la Revista Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10: 02309
Idioma eng
Versión de la publicación publishedVersion
Tipo de recurso Article
Derechos de acceso y licencia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Tipo de acceso Acceso abierto
Notas adicionales The registered version of this article, first published in Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10: 02309, is available online at the publisher's website: Frontiers Media, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
Notas adicionales La versión registrada de este artículo, publicado por primera vez en Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10: 02309, está disponible en línea en el sitio web del editor: Frontiers Media, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309

 
Versiones
Versión Tipo de filtro
Contador de citas: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Estadísticas de acceso: 32 Visitas, 10 Descargas  -  Estadísticas en detalle
Creado: Tue, 06 Feb 2024, 23:20:06 CET