141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35133553)
1. On the Information Obtainable from Comparative Judgments.
Bürkner PC
Psychometrika; 2022 Dec; 87(4):1439-1472. PubMed ID: 35133553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. On the Statistical and Practical Limitations of Thurstonian IRT Models.
Bürkner PC; Schulte N; Holling H
Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 79(5):827-854. PubMed ID: 31488915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?
Schulte N; Holling H; Bürkner PC
Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Apr; 81(2):262-289. PubMed ID: 37929263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Investigating the Normativity of Trait Estimates from Multidimensional Forced-Choice Data.
Frick S; Brown A; Wetzel E
Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 34464217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Joint modeling of the two-alternative multidimensional forced-choice personality measurement and its response time by a Thurstonian D-diffusion item response model.
Bunji K; Okada K
Behav Res Methods; 2020 Jun; 52(3):1091-1107. PubMed ID: 32394181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations.
Cao M; Drasgow F
J Appl Psychol; 2019 Nov; 104(11):1347-1368. PubMed ID: 31070382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format Character Measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT Approach.
Ng V; Lee P; Ho MR; Kuykendall L; Stark S; Tay L
J Pers Assess; 2021; 103(2):224-237. PubMed ID: 32208939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An Item Response Theory Model for Incorporating Response Times in Forced-Choice Measures.
Guo Z; Wang D; Cai Y; Tu D
Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Jun; 84(3):450-480. PubMed ID: 38756463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Integration of the Forced-Choice Questionnaire and the Likert Scale: A Simulation Study.
Xiao Y; Liu H; Li H
Front Psychol; 2017; 8():806. PubMed ID: 28572781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus.
Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
Behav Res Methods; 2012 Dec; 44(4):1135-47. PubMed ID: 22733226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Correction for faking in self-report personality tests.
Sjöberg L
Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):582-91. PubMed ID: 26043667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Forced-Choice Assessment of Work-Related Maladaptive Personality Traits: Preliminary Evidence From an Application of Thurstonian Item Response Modeling.
Guenole N; Brown AA; Cooper AJ
Assessment; 2018 Jun; 25(4):513-526. PubMed ID: 27056730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of Single-Response Format and Forced-Choice Format Instruments Using Thurstonian Item Response Theory.
Dueber DM; Love AMA; Toland MD; Turner TA
Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Feb; 79(1):108-128. PubMed ID: 30636784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Estimating and Using Block Information in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
Frick S
Psychometrika; 2023 Dec; 88(4):1556-1589. PubMed ID: 37640828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance.
Heggestad ED; Morrison M; Reeve CL; McCloy RA
J Appl Psychol; 2006 Jan; 91(1):9-24. PubMed ID: 16435935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires.
Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
Psychol Methods; 2013 Mar; 18(1):36-52. PubMed ID: 23148475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Study Protocol on Intentional Distortion in Personality Assessment: Relationship with Test Format, Culture, and Cognitive Ability.
Van Geert E; Orhon A; Cioca IA; Mamede R; Golušin S; Hubená B; Morillo D
Front Psychol; 2016; 7():933. PubMed ID: 27445902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Can Forced-Choice Response Format Reduce Faking of Socially Aversive Personality Traits?
Valone ALY; Meade AW
J Pers Assess; 2024 Mar; ():1-13. PubMed ID: 38501713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparative personality judgments: replication and extension of robust findings in personality perception using an alternative method.
Beer A
J Pers Assess; 2014; 96(6):610-8. PubMed ID: 24397492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Motivation and Opportunity for Socially Desirable Responding Does Not Alter the General Factor of Personality.
Pelt DHM; Van der Linden D; Dunkel CS; Born MP
Assessment; 2021 Jul; 28(5):1376-1396. PubMed ID: 31619053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
