Examining the item response process to personality measures in high‐stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity

Abstract

AbstractWe conducted two experimental studies with between‐subjects and within‐subjects designs to investigate the item response process for personality measures administered in high‐ versus low‐stakes situations. Apart from assessing measurement validity of the item response process, we examined predictive validity; that is, whether or not different response models entail differential selection outcomes. We found that ideal point response models fit slightly better than dominance response models across high‐ versus low‐stakes situations in both studies. Additionally, fitting ideal point models to the data led to fewer items displaying differential item functioning compared to fitting dominance models. We also identified several items that functioned as intermediate items in both the faking and honest conditions when ideal point models were fitted, suggesting that ideal point model is “theoretically” more suitable across these contexts for personality inventories. However, the use of different response models (dominance vs. ideal point) did not have any substantial impact on the validity of personality measures in high‐stakes situations, or the effectiveness of selection decisions such as mean performance or percent of fakers selected. These findings are significant in that although prior research supports the importance and use of ideal point models for measuring personality, we find that in the case of personality faking, though ideal point models seem to have slightly better measurement validity, the use of dominance models may be adequate with no loss to predictive validity.