Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Improving the Measurement of Psychological Variables: Ideal Point Models Rock!

  • Fritz Drasgow (a1), Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko (a2) and Stephen Stark (a3)
  • In response to commentaries on:

Abstract

Although there is no doubt that Likert scaling suffices for straightforward scale development and use, it is important to appropriately model the response process for more complex measurement problems. In this response, we comment on the response process and four applications: assessment of dimensionality, computerized adaptive testing, differential item functioning, and individual differences in responding. In each case, we argue that correctly modeling the psychology of responding is critical.

Copyright

Corresponding author

E-mail: fdrasgow@uiuc.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820

References

Hide All
Borman, W. C. (2010). Cognitive processes related to forced choice, ideal point responses: Drasgow, Chernyshenko, and Stark got it right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 504506.
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2010). Issues that should not be overlooked in the dominance versus ideal point controversy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 489493.
Carter, N. T., Lake, C. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Toward understanding the psychology of unfolding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 511514.
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, 88106.
Credé, M. (2010). Two caveats for the use of ideal point items: Discrepancies and bivariate constructs. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 494497.
Dalal, D. K., Withrow, S., Gibby, R. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Six questions that practitioners (might) have about ideal point response process items. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 498501.
Davison, M. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 42, 523548.
Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., Tsien, S., Williams, B., & Mead, A. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143165.
Joe, H., & Maydeu-Olivares, (2006). On the asymptotic distribution of Pearson's χ2 in cross-validation samples. Psychometrika, 71, 587592.
Kantrowitz, T. M., & Tuzinski, K. A. (2010). The ideal point model in action: How the use of computer adaptive personality scales benefits organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 507510.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). A process model of performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72107.
Levine, M. V., & Drasgow, F. (1982). Appropriateness measurement: Review, critique and validating studies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 4256.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 155.
Nye, C. D., Guo, J., & Drasgow, F. (2010). Infit, outfit, and misfit: How do you know when the model fits? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 5064.
Oswald, F. L., & Schell, K. L. (2010). Developing and scaling personality measures: Thurstone was right—but so far Likert was not wrong! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 481484.
Reise, S. P. (2010). Thurstone might have been right about attitudes, but Drasgow, Chernyshenko, and Stark fail to make the case for personality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 485488.
Rost, J. (1991). A logistic mixture distribution model for polychotomous item responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 7592.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). If Thurstone was right, what happens when we factor analyze Likert scales? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 502503.
Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). When two factors don't reflect two constructs: How item characteristics can produce artifactual factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659677.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 2539.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Guenole, N. (in press). Can subject matter expert ratings of statement extremity be used to streamline the development of unidimensional pairwise preference scales? Organizational Research Methods.
Tay, L., Ali, U.S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (in press). Fitting IRT models to dichotomous and polytomous data: Assessing the relative model-data fit of ideal point and dominance models.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. The American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529554.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Technical guide for Latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations.
Waples, C. J., Weyhrauch, W. S., Connell, A. R., & Culbertson, S. S. (2010). Questionable defeats and discounted victories for Likert rating scales. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 477480.
Zinnes, J. L., & Griggs, R. A. (1974). Probabilistic, multidimensional unfolding analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 327350.

Improving the Measurement of Psychological Variables: Ideal Point Models Rock!

  • Fritz Drasgow (a1), Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko (a2) and Stephen Stark (a3)
  • In response to commentaries on:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.