Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection

By Adam W. Meade. 2004

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2d096c490ec67bbc09e069ea594b0773ccadc94f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. (2011, unknown): “Sixth, we excluded nine studies in which forced-choice ipsative scales were used to measure organizational culture because they may produce nonindependent scores, resulting in spurious correlations as well as potentially overestimated reliabilities (Johnson, Wood, & Blinkhorn , 1988; Meade, 2004).”
*Belbin`s Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building (2007, background): “This arises from the nature of ipsative data in which correlations are ‘forced’ due to scores for one variable influencing the scores for another (see Baron, 1996; Meade, 2004; Saville and Wilson, 1991).”
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS (2007, background): “In Morgeson et al. (2007), Campion (Table 1) lists eight studies as providing support for the position that response distortion affects the validity of personality measures.”
Leadership and Organizational Culture: Linking CEO Characteristics to Cultural Values (2009, methodology): “The CVI uses an ipsative scale, meaning that the scores given to each cultural type are dependent on the scores given to the other cultural types ( Meade 2004 ).”
The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies (2014, methodology): “*Morgan, R. R. (1975). Prediction of college achievement using the need achievement scale from the Edwards Personal Preference”
75 Years After Likert: Thurstone Was Right! (2010, methodology): “For example, the use of paired comparison items with traditional scoring is problematic because the results are ipsative (i.e., the total score on the assessment is the same for each respondent), which causes a variety of difficulties (Meade, 2004).”
Ipsative measurement and the analysis of organizational values: an alternative approach for data analysis (2014, methodology): “…Loo 1999), the assessment of human and organizational values and attitudes (Rokeach 1970; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983; Kamakura and Mazzon 1991), personnel selection (Johnson et al. 1988; Meade 2004; Christiansen et al. 2005), and vocational choice (Strong 1935; Callis et al. 1954; Campbell 1966).”
The validity of ipsative and quasi‐ipsative forced‐choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta‐analysis (2015, background): “, 1988; Tenopyr, 1988; see also Bartram, 1996; and Thompson, Levitov, & Miederhoff, 1982; for a different conclusion), and being inappropriate for factor analysis (Cattell & Brennan, 1994; Cornwell & Dunlap, 1994; Dunlap & Cornwell, 1994; Meade, 2004).”
The Visual Analogue Scale for Rating, Ranking and Paired-Comparison (VAS-RRP): A new technique for psychological measurement (2018, background): “From a mathematical point of view, paired comparison and ranking are ipsative measures, and this creates analytical problems or problems related to interpretation (Hicks, 1970; Meade, 2004).”