Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Inconsistency Index for the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ)

Published Online:June 30, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000270

Abstract

Abstract. The purpose of this study is the development of an index to assess inconsistency in the answers of Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ) in order to identify and discard inconsistent subjects in applied psychology, as clinical, forensics, or personnel selection. The procedure consists in the use of 10 pairs of highly correlated items in a wide sample of voluntary and anonymous subjects of both sexes (n = 5.644). We inserted random cases to the original data in order to obtain simulated scores of inconsistency and we established a cut-off criterion to discriminate between consistent and inconsistent subjects according to a 70 T Score. A score higher than 10 points discriminated the 3.7% of the subjects. Cronbach’s alpha average for facets was calculated by ZKA-PQ facets distributed in 8 (α: 0.79), 9–10 (α: 0.67), and above 10 points (α: .50) of the inconsistency index. The Feldt test indicates that alpha differences were significant. The inconsistency score did not affect the factorial structure of the ZKA-PQ. We discussed the utility of this index to identify inconsistent subjects with the ZKA-PQ, as, for instance, those with individual difficulties (a limited vocabulary, poor verbal comprehension, an idiosyncratic way of interpreting item meanings, carelessness, inattentiveness…).

References

  • Aluja, A., Kuhlman, M. & Zuckerman, M. (2010). Development of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja personality questionnaire (ZKA-PQ): A factor/facet version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 416–431. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Blanch, A., Aluja, A. & Gallart, S. (2013). Personality assessment through internet: Factor analyses by age groups of the ZKA Personality Questionnaire. Psychologica Belgica, 53, 101–119. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Blanch, A., Aluja, A., Gallart, S. & Dolcet, J. M. (2009). A review on the use of NEO-PI-R validity scales in normative, job selection, and clinical samples. European Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 121–129. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A. & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R tm) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dawson, K. A. & Schuerger, J. M. (2007). Adolescent personality and two measures of response inconsistency. Psychological Reports, 100, 113–114. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Feldt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha or Kuder-Richardson coefficient twenty is the same for two tests. Psychometrika, 34, 363–373. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fong, D. Y., Ho, S. Y. & Lam, T. H. (2010). Evaluation of internal reliability in the presence of inconsistent responses. [Research Support, Non-US Gov’t]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 27. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Handel, R. W., Ben-Poraht, Y. S., Tellegen, A. & Archer, R. (2010). Psychometric functioning of the MMPI-2RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r scales with varying degrees of randomness, aquiescende, and counter-aquiescende. Psychological Assessment, 22, 87–95. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hathaway, S. R. & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 103–129. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Joseph, C., Thomas, B. & Roopa, G. G. (2005). Test taking response styles and associated personality traits in aircrew during evaluation. Indian Journal of Aerospace Medicine, 49, 1–10. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Karson, S. & O’Dell, J. W. (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16 PF. Campaign, IL: Institute of Personality and Ability Tests. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kurtz, J. E. & Parrish, C. L. (2001). Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: The case of the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 315–332. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Dahlstrom, W. G., Barefoot, J. C., Siegler, I. C. & Williams, R. B. (1989). A caution on the use of the MMPI K-correction in research on psychosomatic-medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 58–65. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Merino, C. & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2003). Statistical comparison of the Cronbach’s alpha reliability, applications in the educational and psychological measurement. Revista de Psicología, 2, 127–136. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Salgado, J. F., Remeseiro, C. & Iglesias, M. (1996). Personality and test taking motivation. Psicothema, 8, 553–562. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B. N. & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual of the multidimensional personality questionnaire, Unpublished manuscript. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking Social Desirability Scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 243–262. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zickar, M. J. & Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 71–87. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zuckerman, M. & Aluja, A. (2014). Measures of sensation seeking. In G. J. BoyleD. H. SaklofskeG. MatthewsEds., Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 352–378). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P. & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar