An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 743-748

  Carter, Nathan T ^a   Dalal, Dev K ^a  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Item response theory; Job Descriptive Index; Job satisfaction; Unfolding response models

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955921857     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Balzer W.K., Kihm J.A., Smith P.C., Irwin J.L., Bachiochi P.D., Robie C., et al. Users' manual for the job descriptive index and the job in general (JIG) scales 1997, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
2. Bock R.D. Estimating item parameters and latent ability when the responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika 1972, 37:29-51.
3. Candell G.L., Hulin C.L. Cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons in scale translations: Independent sources of information about item non-equivalence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1986, 17:417-440.
4. Carter, N.T., & Zickar, M.J. (unpublished manuscript). The influence of dimensionality on parameter estimation accuracy in the generalized graded unfolding model. Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University: Bowling Green, OH.
5. Carter, N.T., Dalal, D.K., Lake, C., Lin, B.C., & Zickar, M.J. (in press). Using mixed-model item response theory to analyze organizational survey reponses: An illustration using the job descriptive index. Organizational Research Methods.
6. Chernyshenko O.S., Stark S., Drasgow F., Roberts B.W. Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment 2007, 19:88-106.
7. Donovan M.A., Drasgow F., Probst T.M. Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offer insight. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, 85:305-313.
8. Drasgow F., Levine M.V., Tsien S., Williams B., Mead A.D. Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement 1995, 2:143-166.
9. Guilford J.P. Psychometric methods 1954, McGraw-Hill, New York.
10. Hanisch K.A. The job descriptive index revisited: Questions about the question mark. Journal of Applied Psychology 1992, 77:377-382.
11. Heggestad E.D., Morrison M., Reeve C.L., McCloy R.A. Forced choice assessments of personality for selection. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006, 91:9-24.
12. Hernandez A., Drasgow F., Gonzalez-Roma V. Investigating the functioning of a middle category by means of a mixed-measurement model. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, 89:687-699.
13. Hulin C.L., Drasgow F., Komocar J. Applications of item response theory to analysis of attitude scale translations. Journal of Applied Psychology 1982, 67:818-825.
14. Hulin C.L., Mayer L.J. Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the Job Descriptive Index into Hebrew. Journal of Applied Psychology 1986, 71:83-94.
15. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932, 140:55.
16. Lin, B.C., Carter, N.T., Zickar, M.J., Dalal, D., & Wolford, K. (April, 2009). Unfolding item response theory: Analysis of employment drug testing attitudes. Poster presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: New Orleans, LA.
17. Maij-de Meij A.M., Kelderman H., van der Flier H. Fitting a mixture item response theory model to personality questionnaire data: Characterizing latent classes and investigating possibilities for improving prediction. Applied Psychological Measurement 2008, 32:611-631.
18. McCloy R.A., Heggestad E.D., Reeve C.L. A silk purse from the sow's ear: Retrieving normative information from forced-choice items. Organizational Research Methods 2005, 8:222-248.
19. Roberts J.S., Donoghue J.R., Laughlin J.E. A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement 2000, 24:3-32.
20. Roberts J.S., Fang H., Cui W., Wang Y. GGUM2004: A Windows-based program for estimate parameters in generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement 2006, 30:64-65.
21. Roberts J.S., Laughlin J.E., Wedell D.H. Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1999, 59:211-233.
22. Roberts J.S., Shim H.S. GGUM2004 Technical Reference Manual (v1.1) 2008, Georgia Polytechnic University, Atlanta, GA.
23. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 1969, 34:100-114.
24. Smit A., Kelderman H., van der Flier H. Latent trait latent class analysis of an Eysenck personality questionnaire. Methods of Psychological Research Online 2003, 8:23-50.
25. Smith P.C., Kendall L., Hulin C.L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes 1969, Rand McNally, Chicago.
26. Stark S. MODFIT: A computer program for model-data fit 2001, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign.
27. Stark S., Chernyshenko O.S., Drasgow F., Williams B.A. Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006, 91:25-39.
28. Thissen D. MULTILOG 7: Multiple categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [computer program] 2003, Scientific Software, Chicago, IL.
29. Thurstone L.L. Attitudes can be measured. The American Journal of Sociology 1928, 26:249-269.
30. Wang M., Russell S.S. Measurement equivalence of the Job Descriptive Index across Chinese and American workers: Results from confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2005, 65:709-732.
31. Wheaton B. Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods and Research 1987, 16:118-154.