Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.

Abstract

Forced-choice (FC) personality assessments have shown potential in mitigating the effects of faking. Yet despite increased attention and usage, there exist gaps in understanding the psychometric properties of FC assessments, and particularly when compared to traditional single-stimulus (SS) measures. The present study conducted a series of meta-analyses comparing the psychometric properties of FC and SS assessments after placing them on an equal playing field-by restricting to only studies that examined matched assessments of each format, and thus, avoiding the extraneous confound of using comparisons from different contexts (Sackett, 2021). Matched FC and SS assessments were compared in terms of criterionrelated validity and susceptibility to faking in terms of mean shifts and validity attenuation. Additionally, the correlation between FC and SS scores was examined to help establish construct validity evidence. Results showed that matched FC and SS scores exhibit strong correlations with one another (ρ = .69), though correlations weakened when the FC measure was faked (ρ = .59) versus when both measures were taken honestly (ρ = .73). Average scores increased from honest to faked samples for both FC (d = .41) and SS scores (d = .75), though the effect was more pronounced for SS measures and with larger effects for contextdesirable traits (FC d = .61, SS d = .99). Criterion-related validity was similar between matched FC and SS measures overall. However, when considering validity in faking contexts, FC scores exhibited greater validity than SS measures. Thus, although FC measures are not completely immune to faking, they exhibit meaningful benefits over SS measures in contexts of faking.

Personality Traits Leading Respondents to Refuse to Answer a Forced-Choice Personality Item: An Item Response Tree (IRTree) Model

“…In personnel selection situations, the forced-choice approach is sometimes preferred to the rating scale approach to assess personality because the former may be less prone to faking or social desirability biases, as individuals are thought not to be given the opportunity to present themselves in a more favorable light by choosing responses that align with their desired image [3]. There is evidence that questionnaires using forced-choice items are indeed less prone to faking than questionnaires using traditional single-statement items [4,5]. Research also suggests that forced-choice items exhibit strong equivalence with traditional singlestatement items, demonstrating similar reliabilities, validities, and minimal differential impact on respondents' emotional and cognitive reactions [6].…”