Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T15:58:31.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues That Should Not Be Overlooked in the Dominance Versus Ideal Point Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Anna Brown  and
Alberto Maydeu-Olivares
Anna Brown*
Affiliation:
SHL Group Ltd
Alberto Maydeu-Olivares
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona
*
E-mail: anna.brown@shlgroup.com, Address: SHL Group Ltd, The Pavilion, 1 Atwell Place, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 0NE, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 489 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (in press). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement.Google Scholar
Chernyshenko, O., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumption of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88–106. Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 465–476.Google Scholar
Forero, C. G., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2009). Estimation of IRT graded models for rating data: Limited vs. full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14, 275–299. Google Scholar
Levine, M. V. (1994). Every data set that is well fit by a two-dimensional IRT model can be equally well fit by a lower dimensional model. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2005). Further empirical results on parametric vs. non-parametric IRT modeling of Likert-type personality data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 275–293. Google Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Hernández, A., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). A multidimensional ideal point IRT model for binary data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 445–472. Google Scholar
Peress, M., & Spirling, A. (2009). Scaling the critics: Uncovering the latent dimensions of movie criticism with an item response approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 71–83. Google Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., & Drasgow, F. (2005). An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: The multi-unidimensional pairwise-preference model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 184–203. Google Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (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. Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. Google Scholar
Tsai, R. C., & Böckenholt, U. (2001). Maximum likelihood estimation of factor and ideal point models for paired comparison data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 795–811. Google Scholar