Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.65

Abstract.Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, and Williams (2006) and Chernyshenko, Stark, Drasgow, and Roberts (2007) suggested that unfolding item response theory (IRT) models are important alternatives to dominance IRT models to describe the response processes on self-report personality inventories. To obtain more insight into the structure of personality data, we investigated whether dominance or unfolding IRT models are a better description of the response processes on personality trait inventories constructed using dominance response processes or ideal-point response processes. Data from 866 adolescents on a Dutch personality inventory, the NPV-J (Luteijn, van Dijk, & Barelds, 2005), and from 704 adolescents on a Dutch translation of an Order scale (Chernyshenko et al., 2007) were used. Results from Stark et al. (2006) and Chernyshenko et al. (2007) were partly supported. The self-report inventory that was constructed using dominance response processes (NPV-J) consisted mostly of items with monotonically increasing item response functions (IRFs), but some IRFs were single-peaked. The Order scale (constructed on the basis of ideal-point response processes) consisted of items with monotonically increasing, decreasing, and single-peaked IRFs. Further implications for personality test construction are discussed.

References

  • Barelds, D.P.H. , Luteijn, F. (2002). Measuring personality: A comparison of three personality questionnaires in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 499– 510 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Butcher, J.N. , Dahlstrom, W.G. , Graham, J.R. , Tellegen, A. , Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2: Manual for administration and scoring . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chernyshenko, O.S. , Stark, S. , Chan, K. , Drasgow, F. , Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item-response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523– 562 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chernyshenko, O.S. , Stark, S. , Drasgow, F. , Roberts, B.W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal-point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88– 106 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Conn, S. , Rieke, M.L. Eds. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual . Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Costa, P.T. , McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Embretson, S.E. , Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Glas, C.A.W. (1988). The derivation of some tests of the Rasch model from the multinomial distribution. Psychometrika, 53, 525– 546 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gough, H.G. , Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hendriks, A.A.J. , Hofstee, W.K.B. , De Raad, B. (1999). Handleiding bij de Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) . [The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Professional manual]. Lisse: Swets Test Publishers First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Luteijn, F. (1974). De konstruktie van een persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst (NPV) . [The construction of the Dutch Personality Questionnaire (NPV)]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Luteijn, F. , van Dijk, H. , Barelds, D.P.H. (2005). NPV-J: Junior Nederlandse Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst. Herziene handleiding 2005 . [NPV-J: Dutch Personality Questionnaire-Junior: Professional manual (revised)]. Amsterdam: Harcourt Assessments B.V First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Meijer, R.R. , Baneke, J.J. (2004). Analyzing psychopathology items: A case for nonparametric item response theory. Psychological Methods, 9, 354– 368 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Molenaar, I.W. , Sijtsma, K. (2000). MSP for Windows [Software manual] . Groningen: iec ProGAMMA First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ozer, D.J. , Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401– 421 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Post, W.J. (1992). Nonparametric unfolding models. A latent structure approach . Leiden: DSWO Press First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Post, W.J. , van Duijn, M.A.J. , van Baarsen B., (2001). (or ). ? On the choice of an IRT model for scaling data. In A. Boomsma, M.A.J. van Duijn, & T.A.B. Snijders (Eds), Essays on item response theory (pp. 391-414). New York: Springer-Verlag First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Post, W.J. , Snijders, T.A.B. (1993). Nonparametric unfolding models for dichotomous scaling data. Methodica, 7, 130– 156 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reise, S.P. , Waller, N.G. (2003). How many IRT parameters does it take to model psychopathology items?. Psychological Methods, 8, 164– 184 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, J.S. , Donoghue, J.R. , Laughlin, J.E. (2000). A general item-response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3– 32 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, J.S. (2001). GGUM2000: Estimation of parameters in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 38– First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, J.S. , Fang, H. , Cui, W. , Wang, Y. (2004). GGUM2004: A Windows-based program to estimate parameters of the generalized graded unfolding model . Manuscript in preparation First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, J.S. , Laughlin, J.E. , Wedell, D.H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211– 233 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sanderman, R. , Arrindell, W.A. , Ranchor, A.V. , Eysenck, H.J. , Eysenck, S.B.G. (1995). Het meten van persoonlijkheidskenmerken met de Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) . [Measuring personality aspects with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)]. Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sijtsma, K. , Molenaar, I.W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stark, S. (2001). MODFIT: A computer program for model-data fit . Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stark, S. , Chernyshenko, O.S. , Drasgow, F. , Williams, B.A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25– 39 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Schuur, W.H. , Post, W.J. (1998). MUDFOLD. A program for multiple unidimensional unfolding . Version 4.0 [Software manual]. Groningen: ProGAMMA First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Verhelst, N.D. , Glas, C.A.W. (1995). The generalized one-parameter model: OPLM. In G.H. Fischer & I.W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Their foundations, recent developments, and applications. (pp. 215-238). New York: Springer-Verlag First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Verhelst, N.D. , Glas, C.A.W. , Verstralen, H.H.F.M. (1995). OPLM: computer program and manual . Arnhem: Cito, the National Institute for Educational Measurement, the Netherlands First citation in articleGoogle Scholar