The effects of different response option orders on survey responses have been studied extensively. The typical research design involves examining the differences in response characteristics between conditions with the same item stems and response option orders that differ in valence—either incrementally arranged (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly agree) or decrementally arranged (e.g., strongly agree to strongly disagree). The present study added two additional experimental conditions—randomly incremental or decremental and completely randomized. All items were presented in an item-by-item format. We also extended previous studies by including an examination of response option order effects on: careless responding, correlations between focal predictors and criteria, and participant reactions, all the while controlling for false discovery rate and focusing on the size of effects. In a sample of 1,198 university students, we found little to no response option order effects on a recognized personality assessment vis-à-vis measurement equivalence, scale mean differences, item-level distributions, or participant reactions. However, the completely randomized response option order condition differed on several careless responding indices suggesting avenues for future research.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the structural validity of Holland’s circular/hexagonal model in two versions of a commonly used Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional (RIASEC) occupational interest measure – one that used items with a neutral response option ( unsure) and one that used items without a neutral response option. Method: These comparisons were made using a sample of 1,025 undergraduate university business majors. A two-group Cosine Function Model (CFM) implemented in standard structural equation modeling software was used to investigate the circumplex fit across the two versions of the assessment. Results: CFM analyses suggested a high level of equivalence across versions such that (1) the correlation matrix of each group shows a good fit to the RIASEC circumplex, and (2) the two correlation matrices are essentially identical. Conclusion: The neutral response option (or lack thereof) did not seem to affect model fit. The generalizability of these results should be explored in future studies.

The focus of this Perspective article is on the comparison of two of the most popular initial applicant screening methods: Resumes and application forms. The viewpoint offered is that application forms are superior to resumes during the initial applicant screening stage of selection. This viewpoint is supported in part based on criterion-related validity evidence that favors application forms over resumes. For example, the biographical data (biodata) inventory, which can contain similar questions to those used in application forms, is one of the most valid predictors of job performance (if empirically keyed), whereas job experience and years of education, which are often inferred from resumes and cover letters, are two of the least valid predictors of job performance (among commonly used screening criteria). In addition to validity evidence, making decisions based on application forms as opposed to resumes is likely to help organizations defend against claims of discriminatory hiring while enhancing their ability to hire in a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive manner. For example, applicant names on resumes can lead to screening bias against members of identifiable subgroups, whereas an applicant’s name can be easily and automatically hidden from decision-makers when reviewing application forms (particularly digital application forms). Despite these convincing arguments focused on applicant quality and diversity, a substantial research–practice gap regarding the use of resumes and cover letters remains.

Quasi-ipsative (QI) forced-choice response formats are often recommended over single-stimulus (SS) as a method to reduce applicant faking. Across three studies we developed and tested a QI version of the RIASEC occupational interests scale. The first study established acceptable reliability and validity of the QI version. The second and third studies tested the efficacy of the QI version for faking prevention in simulated job applicant scenarios. The results revealed that although the QI and SS formats were similarly fakable for the primary targeted interest, faking was limited for the secondary target on the QI version. Future research should identify the specific contexts in which QI prevents faking on various individual differences measures to allow for accurate recommendations in applied settings.