Premium
Comparing Personality Test Formats and Warnings: Effects on criterion‐related validity and test‐taker reactions
Author(s) -
Converse Patrick D.,
Oswald Frederick L.,
Imus Anna,
Hedricks Cynthia,
Roy Radha,
Butera Hilary
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00420.x
Subject(s) - psychology , likert scale , test (biology) , incremental validity , criterion validity , personality , social psychology , personnel selection , personality test , test validity , applied psychology , psychometrics , construct validity , clinical psychology , developmental psychology , statistics , paleontology , mathematics , biology
The potential for applicant response distortion on personality measures remains a major concern in high‐stakes testing situations. Many approaches to understanding response distortion are too transparent (e.g., instructed faking studies) – or are too subtle (e.g., correlations with social desirability measures as indices of faking). Recent research reveals more promising approaches in two methods: using forced‐choice (FC) personality test items and warning against faking. The present study examined effects of these two methods on criterion‐related validity and test‐taker reactions. Results supported incremental validity for an FC and Likert‐scale measure in warning and no‐warning conditions, above and beyond cognitive ability. No clear differences emerged between the FC vs Likert measures or warning vs no‐warning conditions in terms of validity. However, some evidence suggested that FC measures and warnings may produce negative test‐taker reactions. We conclude with implications for implementation in selection settings.