CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentEmployer Branding and e-HRM

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing Validity with Forced-Choice Criterion Measurement Formats

Bartram, Dave·2007·International Journal of Selection and Assessment
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00386.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The relative validities of forced‐choice (ipsative) and Likert rating‐scale item formats as criterion measures are examined. While there has been much debate about the relative technical and psychometric merits and demerits of ipsative instruments, the present research focused on the crucial question of whether the use of this format has any practical benefit – in terms of improved validity. An analysis is reported from a meta‐analysis data set. This demonstrates that higher operational validity coefficients (prediction of line‐manager ratings of competencies) are associated with the use of forced‐choice (r=.38) rather than rating scale (r=.25) item formats for the criterion measurement instrument when performance is rated by the same line managers on both formats and where the predictor is held constant. Thus the apparent criterion‐related validity of a predictor can increase by 50% simply by changing the format of the criterion measurement instrument. The implications of this for practice are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00386.x

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Baron H.(2002). Working with Ipsative Measures.Paper Presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology April 2002 Toronto Canada.
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262 · DOI · Paper page
  3. SHL, 1993, OPQ Concept Model: Manual and user's guide
  4. SHL, 1993, Inventory of Management Competencies: Manual and user's guide
  5. SHL, 1999, OPQ32: Manual and user's guide

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 136

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bartram, D.
Corresponding author
Bartram, Dave
ORCID
Bartram, Dave
Venue
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-14
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
263-272
ISSN
  • 0965-075X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2389
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00386.x
OpenAlex
W2131404783
Cited by
132
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
International Journal of Selection and Assessment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
forced-choice format, criterion validity, operational validity, competency assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review