Qualitative variations in personality inventories: subjective understandings of items in a personality inventory

Lundmann, Lars; Villadsen, Jakob Waag

doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1134737

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…format) as they did "It will be observed from these tables that questions have different meanings to different individuals, though their responses may be the same. In fact, there was no question in which we did not find different interpretations of the item" (p. 26) Lundmann and Villadsen (2016) After completion of the BFI-10 (Rammstedt & John, 2007), individuals were asked to indicate why they chose a particular item response "What is obvious from the qualitative analyses above is the large qualitative variation in respondents' understandings of the items and the ways in which respondents generate a subjective meaningful answer" (p. 177)…”

Section: Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Variants of cognitive interviewing exist in the literature. For instance, Lundmann and Villadsen (2016) provided online open text fields to respondents and asked for elaboration of their item responses. McCrae, Stone, Fagan, and Costa (1998) had interviewers explore reasons for disagreement on personality ratings of couples.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality––A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective

Schulze

West

Freudenstein

et al. 2020

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The symmetry principle and the frame‐of‐reference perspective have each made contributions to improving the measurement of personality. Although each perspective is valuable in its own right, we argue that even greater improvement can be achieved through the combination of both. Therefore, the goal of the current article was to show the value of a combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective. Method We conducted a literature review to summarize relevant research findings that shed light on the interplay of both perspectives and developed an integrative model. Results Based on the literature review and on theoretical grounds, we argue that a basic premise of the frame‐of‐reference literature––that personality items are open to interpretation and allow individuals to impose their own contextual framings––should be considered from a symmetry perspective. Unintended context‐specificity in items may “spread” to personality facets and domains, and thus, impact the symmetry of personality measures with other criteria. As the individuals´ frames‐of‐reference and (a)symmetric relationships are not always apparent, we term them as “hidden.” Conclusions The proposed combination of lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspectives provides further insights into current issues in personality research and uncovers important avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality––A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective

Schulze

West

Freudenstein

et al. 2020

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This strengthens the expression of subjective viewpoints through Q-sort. Hence, this approach helps to address the methodological concern that the same value statements might be interpreted differently by different participants (Lundmann & Villadsen, 2016). Besides gaining a better understanding of the relevant values for both Q-factors, considering the narratives helped to make the CEOs' viewpoints tangible and to empathize with the viewpoints represented by the Q-factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementing Q-method with narratives: Contextualizing CEOs’ values for family firms

Pötschke

2018

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Values in family firms are influenced by the complex interplay of family and business. Thus, research requires methods that grasp this complexity. This paper presents a fresh methodological approach for family business research with the example of an in-depth analysis of CEOs’ value orientations. Benefits of an integrated use of two qualitative methods – Q-sorts and narrative interviews – which were collected and analyzed for 16 CEOs of family firms are illustrated. Q-method was used to build value patterns, whereas narrative interviews were conducted to reveal how values were contextualized and interpreted. This integrated approach builds qualitative richness in different ways: first, by allowing for a deep understanding of individual experience; second, by providing more contextual insight, and third, by capturing the meaning of abstract values. The approach advanced here can be reproduced for other complex organizational dynamics. Thus, this user-friendly approach is particularly suited for organizational research in a managerial environment.

show abstract

“…This requires respondents to use their common-sense knowledge to first interpret the content described and to construct specific meanings for the given context. It is therefore unsurprising that interpretations of psychometrically selected, standardised rating items vary substantially within and between persons, indicating broad fields of meaning and substantial subjectivity in data generation (Lundmann and Villadsen 2016;Rosenbaum and Valsiner 2011;Uher and Visalberghi 2016;de Williams et al 2000). But unlike in observational methods, scientists commonly neither instruct nor train the data-generating persons to interpret rating items in standardised ways nor do they enquire about raters' item interpretations and the particular referents that raters considered when judging a particular case.…”

Section: Pitfalls Of Language-based Methods Used For Quantitative Datmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement in metrology, psychology and social sciences: data generation traceability and numerical traceability as basic methodological principles applicable across sciences

Uher

2020

Qual Quant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement creates trustworthy quantifications. But unified frameworks applicable to all sciences are still lacking and discipline-specific terms, concepts and practices hamper mutual understanding and identification of commonalities and differences. Transdisciplinary and philosophy-of-science analyses are used to compare metrologists' structural framework of physical measurement with psychologists' and social scientists' fiat measurement of constructs. The analyses explore the functions that measuring instruments and measurement-executing persons in themselves fulfil in data generation processes, and identify two basic methodological principles critical for measurement. (1) Data generation traceability requires that numerical assignments depend on the properties to be quantified in the study objects (object-dependence). Therefore, scientists must establish unbroken documented connection chains that directly link (via different steps) the quantitative entity to be measured in the study property with the numerical value assigned to it, thereby making the assignment process fully transparent, traceable and thus reproducible. (2) Numerical traceability requires that scientists also directly link the assigned numerical value to known standards in documented and transparent ways, thereby establishing the results' public interpretability (subject-independence). The article demonstrates how these principles can be meaningfully applied to psychical and social phenomena, considering their peculiarities and inherent limitations, revealing that not constructs in themselves but only their indicators (proxies) can be measured. These foundational concepts allow to distinguish measurement-based quantifications from other (subjective) quantifications that may be useful for pragmatic purposes but lack epistemic authority, which is particularly important for applied (e.g., legal, clinical) contexts. They also highlight new avenues for establishing transparency and replicability in empirical sciences.

show abstract

Qualitative variations in personality inventories: subjective understandings of items in a personality inventory

Cited by 16 publications

References 46 publications

Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality––A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective

Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality––A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective

Supplementing Q-method with narratives: Contextualizing CEOs’ values for family firms

Measurement in metrology, psychology and social sciences: data generation traceability and numerical traceability as basic methodological principles applicable across sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About