PAPER: Examining Validity Evidence for Multidimensional Forced Choice Measures using Four Scoring Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, forced choice testing is perhaps the most widely explored approach to dealing with faking and other forms of response distortion in applied settings. This is due largely to advances in test construction and scoring over the last 15 years which have made it possible to obtain normative information from forced choice tests via classical test theory (CTT) (White & Young, 1998) and item response theory (IRT) methods (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011; de la Torre, Ponsoda, Leenen, & Hontangas, 2011; Stark, Chernyshenko, & Drasgow, 2005). For personality testing, in particular, multidimensional forced choice (MFC) applications are rapidly expanding. Our presentation will describe four MFC modeling approaches and research comparing convergent and criterion validities for MFC and Likert-type Big Five personality measures administered in Korea. The MFC Big Five measure was scored four ways: (1) a partially ipsative approach based on CTT (White & Young, 1998); (2) an analogous partially ipsative approach using an IRT graded response model (3) the Thurstonian MFC IRT approach (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011); and (4) the GGUM-RANK MFC IRT scoring approach (Authors, 2015). We found that all IRT-based scoring methods showed expected patterns of correlation with Likert-type measures, thus supporting the viability of these recently developed approaches. However, the much simpler CTT scoring method was also quite effective and may be adequate for many organizational and educational applications. In our presentation, we will elaborate on these issues and provide suggestions for future research. References Authors (2015). Paper title. Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71 , 460–502. de la Torre, J., Ponsoda, V., Leenen, I., & Hontangas, P. (2012, April). Examining the viability of recent models for forced-choice data. Presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2005). An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: The multiunidimensional pairwise preference model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29 , 184 –201. White, L. A., & Young, M. C. (1998, August). Development and validation of the Assessment of Individual Motivation (AIM). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it