Examining the Process of Responding to Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values Items: Should Ideal Point Scoring Methods Be Considered?

Abstract

The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV) is a 64-item self-report measure of goals from each octant of the interpersonal circumplex. We used item response theory methods to compare whether dominance models or ideal point models best described how people respond to CSIV items. Specifically, we fit a polytomous dominance model called the generalized partial credit model and an ideal point model of similar complexity called the generalized graded unfolding model to the responses of 1,893 college students. The results of both graphical comparisons of item characteristic curves and statistical comparisons of model fit suggested that an ideal point model best describes the process of responding to CSIV items. The different models produced different rank orderings of high-scoring respondents, but overall the models did not differ in their prediction of criterion variables (agentic and communal interpersonal traits and implicit motives).

Criterion-related Validity of Forced-Choice Personality Measures: A Cautionary Note Regarding Thurstonian IRT versus Classical Test Theory Scoring

“…As a result, the criterion validity estimates evidenced by CTT scoring would be expected to be slightly higher in practice, further widening the gap between the two scoring methods. Ultimately, the results presented here are relatively consistent with existing research comparing classical test theory scoring of personality assessments with item response theory counterpart, where IRT-derived scoring does not tend to improve trait estimations (Chernyshenko, Stark, Drasgow, & Roberts, 2007;Ferrando & Chico, 2007;Ling, Zhang, Locke, Li, & Li, 2016;Xu & Stone, 2012), and specifically for selection purposes (Speer, Robie, & Christiansen, 2016). Although TIRT is not without theoretical merits, and assessments constructed with TIRT scoring in mind may be useful for other purposes (e.g., low-stakes, developmental assessments; although more research is certainly required to make that claim), it is clear that applying TIRT scoring to an assessment that was designed to be scored with a CTT methodology may result in inadequate criterion validity.…”

Analyzing the Dimensionality of Academic Motivation Scale Based on the Item Response Theory Models

“…The results of this study supported that the AMS items fit to tGGUM that does not assume monotone increasing item characteristics curves. Similar with this result, the studies conducted on instruments measuring various affective skills such as attitude and personality, revealed that the GGUM provided better model data fit than the monotonic models like the GRM (Roberts, Laughling, & Wedell, 1999;Chernyshenko, Stark, Chan, Drasgow, & Williams 2001;Chernyshenko, 2003;Meijer & Baneke, 2004;Chernyshenko, Stark, Drasgow, & Roberts, 2007;Miller, 2007;Cao, Drasgow, & Cho, 2015;Ling, Zhang, Locke, Li, & Li, 2016).…”

KONTAKT© for Australian adolescents on the autism spectrum: protocol of a randomized control trial

“…“speak up” representing an assertive action, “get them to leave me alone” a distancing action, and “tell them when I am annoyed” combining these two actions) [65]. As suggested by previous research, this study will use these dimensional scores instead of the eight octants to predict the outcome [66]. Previous studies in adolescents with ASD have demonstrated acceptable internal consistency of 0.78 for this measure [64].…”