Do applicants and incumbents respond to personality items similarly? A comparison of dominance and ideal point response models

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 109-118

  O'Brien, Erin ^a   Lahuis, David M ^a  

^a WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955969356     PISSN: 0965075X     EISSN: 14682389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00539.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Barrett, G. V., Phillips, J. S., & Alexander, R. A. (1981). Concurrent and predictive validity designs: A critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 1-6.
2. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.
3. Cattell, H. E. P. (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 2: Personality assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Chamblee, M. C. (1998). A Monte Carlo investigation of conditions that impact Type I error rates of DFIT. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
5. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
6. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88-106.
7. Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16, 81-106.
8. Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., Tsien, S., Williams, B. A., & Mead, A. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous items response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-165.
9. Drasgow, F., & Lissak, R. I. (1983). Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 363-373.
10. Fleer, P. F. (1993). A Monte Carlo investigation of the conditions that impact Type I error rates of DFIT (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-04, 2266B.
11. Goldberg, L. R. (1999, March 17). IPIP. Retrieved May 4, 2003, from.
12. Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T. S., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341-355.
13. Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Japanese Psychological Research, 22, 144-149.
14. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
15. Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 109-244.
16. Koenig, J. A., & Roberts, J. S. (2007). Linking parameters estimated with the generalized graded unfolding model: A comparison of characteristic curve methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 504-524.
17. LaHuis, D. M., Clark, P., & O'Brien, E. (2010). An examination of item response theory item fit indices for the graded response model. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 10-23.
18. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-53.
19. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
20. Mead, A. W., Lautenschlager, G. J., & Johnson, E. C. (2007). A Monte Carlo examination of the sensitivity of the differential functioning of items and tests framework for tests of measurement invariance with Likert data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 430-455.
21. Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348-355.
22. 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.
23. Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 1-17.
24. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
25. Roberts, J. S. (2001). GGUM2000: Estimation of parameters in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 38.
26. 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.
27. Roberts, J. S., & Huang, C. (2003). GGUMLINK: A computer program to link parameter estimates of the generalized graded unfolding model from item response theory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 525-536.
28. Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211-233.
29. Robie, C., Zickar, M. J., & Schmit, M. J. (2001). Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales. Human Performance, 14, 187-207.
30. Rosse, 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.
31. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
32. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrica Monographs, 34, 100.
33. Smithikrai, C. (2007). Personality traits and job success: An investigation of a Thai sample. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 134-138.
34. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, K., Lee, W. C., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943-953.
35. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497-508.
36. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25-39.
37. Stokes, G. S., Hogan, J. B., & Snell, A. F. (1993). Comparability of incumbent and applicant samples for the development of biodata keys: The influence of social desirability. Personnel Psychology, 46, 739-62.
38. Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-554.
39. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-Analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 197-210.
40. White, L. A., Young, M. C., Hunter, A. E., & Rumsey, M. G. (2008). Lessons learned in transitioning personality measures from research to operational settings. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 291-295.
41. Zickar, M. J. (2000). Modeling faking on personality tests. In D. R. Ilgen, & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline (pp. 95-113). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42. Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 168-190.
43. Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551-563.
44. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (2003). BILOG-MG 3 [Computer Software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.