Increasing Validity with Forced- Choice Criterion Measurement Formats

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Ipsative measurement and the analysis of organizational values: an alternative approach for data analysis (2014, background): “Ipsative data seem to produce comparable results to normative data when the number of scales is greater than 30 and there are low correlations between the scales (Bartram 1996; Baron 1996; Chan and Bentler 1993, 1996, 1998).”
Item Response Modeling of Forced-Choice Questionnaires (2011, background): “Because it is impossible to endorse every item, the forced-choice format eliminates uniform biases such as acquiescence responding (Cheung & Chan, 2002), and can increase operational validity by reducing halo effects (Bartram, 2007).”
Students' Perceptions of Teacher Support Across the Transition from Primary to Secondary School (2010, result): “Results from a recent study supports that forced scoring formats yield higher validity than Likert rating scale formats (Bartram, 2007).”
The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies (2014, methodology): “FC formats have been used in personnel and student selection mainly because they reduce or eliminate uniform biases such as acquiescence responding and faking, and can reduce ‘‘halo’’ effects (Bartram, 2005, 2007; Cheung & Chan, 2002).”