These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38867477)

  • 1. Though Forced, Still Valid: Examining the Psychometric Performance of Forced-Choice Measurement of Personality in Children and Adolescents.
    Li M; Zhang B; Mou Y
    Assessment; 2024 Jun; ():10731911241255841. PubMed ID: 38867477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Moving beyond Likert and Traditional Forced-Choice Scales: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Graded Forced-Choice Format.
    Zhang B; Luo J; Li J
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2024; 59(3):434-460. PubMed ID: 37652572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. On the Validity of Forced Choice Scores Derived From the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model.
    Walton KE; Cherkasova L; Roberts RD
    Assessment; 2020 Jun; 27(4):706-718. PubMed ID: 31007043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items.
    Kreitchmann RS; Abad FJ; Ponsoda V; Nieto MD; Morillo D
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2309. PubMed ID: 31681103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.
    Speer AB; Wegmeyer LJ; Tenbrink AP; Delacruz AY; Christiansen ND; Salim RM
    J Appl Psychol; 2023 Nov; 108(11):1812-1833. PubMed ID: 37326537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing the validity of trait estimates from the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format.
    Wetzel E; Frick S
    Psychol Assess; 2020 Mar; 32(3):239-253. PubMed ID: 31738070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Construct validity of adolescents' self-reported big five personality traits: importance of conceptual breadth and initial validation of a short measure.
    Morizot J
    Assessment; 2014 Oct; 21(5):580-606. PubMed ID: 24619971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Motivational Value Systems Questionnaire (MVSQ): Psychometric Analysis Using a Forced Choice Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Merk J; Schlotz W; Falter T
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1626. PubMed ID: 28979228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Adjectives vs. Statements in Forced Choice and Likert Item Types: Which Is More Resistant to Impression Management in Personality Assessment?
    Walton KE; Radunzel J; Moore R; Burrus J; Anguiano-Carrasco C; Murano D
    J Pers Assess; 2021; 103(6):842-853. PubMed ID: 33533652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A Comparison of the Nomological Networks Associated With Forced-Choice and Likert Formats of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
    Miller JD; Gentile B; Carter NT; Crowe M; Hoffman BJ; Campbell WK
    J Pers Assess; 2018; 100(3):259-267. PubMed ID: 28436690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Assessing Criterion A in adolescents using the Semistructured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5.
    Weekers LC; Verhoeff SCE; Kamphuis JH; Hutsebaut J
    Personal Disord; 2021 Jul; 12(4):312-319. PubMed ID: 32881576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Psychometric Properties of the Turkish version of the Morningness - Eveningness Stability Scale improved (MESSi) in Adolescents.
    Öğütlü H; Uygun SD; Randler C
    Chronobiol Int; 2021 Nov; 38(11):1650-1658. PubMed ID: 34167383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief - Likert format: Factor structure analysis in general population in France].
    Ferchiou A; Todorov L; Lajnef M; Baudin G; Pignon B; Richard JR; Leboyer M; Szöke A; Schürhoff F
    Encephale; 2017 Dec; 43(6):558-563. PubMed ID: 27644915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Validation of the French version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory].
    Courtois R; Petot JM; Plaisant O; Allibe B; Lignier B; Réveillère C; Lecocq G; John O
    Encephale; 2020 Dec; 46(6):455-462. PubMed ID: 32331765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of "los pequeños" Big Five: The Spanish version of the Big Five Personality Trait Short Questionnaire in adolescents.
    Ortet G; Mezquita L; Morizot J; Ortet-Walker J; Ibáñez MI
    Psychol Assess; 2022 May; 34(5):e32-e44. PubMed ID: 35298218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a nationally representative sample of Canadian children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years.
    Hoffmann MD; Lang JJ; Guerrero MD; Cameron JD; Goldfield GS; Orpana HM; de Groh M
    Health Rep; 2020 Aug; 31(8):13-20. PubMed ID: 32816414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Effect of Response Format on the Psychometric Properties of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Consequences for Item Meaning and Factor Structure.
    Ackerman RA; Donnellan MB; Roberts BW; Fraley RC
    Assessment; 2016 Apr; 23(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 25616401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.