Abstract
The reliabilities and validities of true-false and forced-choice formats in personality assessment were compared. Subjects from college residential units were assigned randomly to groups receiving the Personality Research Form (PRF) in either forced-choice or standard true-false form. Reliabilities were substantially higher for the true-false form. Peer rating validities for each format were in a comparable range, but correlations with self-ratings were higher for the true-false form. Results do not support the contention that a forced-choice format is consistently more valid than a standard format. Subjects well acquainted with ratees manifested more highly differentiated judgments, showed consistently higher validity, but were more prone to show a bias to attribute more salient traits, like dominance and exhibition, to ratees.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
