Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.

In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder,&Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of ps...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kurtz, John E., Parrish, Catherine L.
Format: Villanova Faculty Authorship
Language:English
Published: 2001
Online Access:http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=https://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:177843
id vudl:177843
record_format vudl
institution Villanova University
collection Digital Library
modeltype_str_mv vudl-system:CollectionModel
vudl-system:ResourceCollection
vudl-system:CoreModel
datastream_str_mv THUMBNAIL
MEMBER-QUERY
PROCESS-MD
MEMBER-LIST-RAW
LEGACY-METS
AUDIT
RELS-EXT
LICENSE
PARENT-QUERY
STRUCTMAP
PARENT-LIST
AGENTS
DC
PARENT-LIST-RAW
hierarchytype
hierarchy_all_parents_str_mv vudl:177809
vudl:172968
vudl:641262
vudl:3
vudl:1
sequence_vudl_177809_str 0000000012
hierarchy_top_id vudl:641262
hierarchy_top_title Villanova Faculty Publications
fedora_parent_id_str_mv vudl:177809
hierarchy_first_parent_id_str vudl:177843
hierarchy_parent_id vudl:177809
hierarchy_parent_title Kurtz John
hierarchy_sequence_sort_str 0000000012
hierarchy_sequence 0000000012
spelling Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
Kurtz, John E.
Parrish, Catherine L.
In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder,&Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of psychometric tests. Data were obtained from 2 undergraduate student samples, a self-report group (n = 132) who provided NEO–PI–R self-ratings on 2 occasions separated by a 7- to 14-day interval and an informant group (n = 109) who provided ratings of well-known friends or relatives on 2 occasions separated by a 6 month interval. INC scores from the Time 1 protocols were used to divide these samples into low, moderate, and elevated inconsistency groups. In both samples, these 3 groups showed equivalent levels of reliability and validity as measured by: contingency coefficients for the 20 INC item responses across occasions; test–retest intraclass correlations of NEO–PI–R domain scores; convergent correlations with Goldberg’s (1992) Bipolar Adjective Scale scores; and discriminant correlations between the 5 NEO–PI–R domain scores. The similarity of results across self-report and informant assessment contexts provides additional evidence that semantic consistency approaches to assessing protocol validity may overestimate the prevalence of random or careless response behavior in standard administration conditions. Several theories are discussed that accommodate the existence of valid inconsistency in structured personality assessment.
2001
Villanova Faculty Authorship
vudl:177843
Journal of Personality Assessment 76 (2), 2001, 315-332.
en
dc.title_txt_mv Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
dc.creator_txt_mv Kurtz, John E.
Parrish, Catherine L.
dc.description_txt_mv In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder,&Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of psychometric tests. Data were obtained from 2 undergraduate student samples, a self-report group (n = 132) who provided NEO–PI–R self-ratings on 2 occasions separated by a 7- to 14-day interval and an informant group (n = 109) who provided ratings of well-known friends or relatives on 2 occasions separated by a 6 month interval. INC scores from the Time 1 protocols were used to divide these samples into low, moderate, and elevated inconsistency groups. In both samples, these 3 groups showed equivalent levels of reliability and validity as measured by: contingency coefficients for the 20 INC item responses across occasions; test–retest intraclass correlations of NEO–PI–R domain scores; convergent correlations with Goldberg’s (1992) Bipolar Adjective Scale scores; and discriminant correlations between the 5 NEO–PI–R domain scores. The similarity of results across self-report and informant assessment contexts provides additional evidence that semantic consistency approaches to assessing protocol validity may overestimate the prevalence of random or careless response behavior in standard administration conditions. Several theories are discussed that accommodate the existence of valid inconsistency in structured personality assessment.
dc.date_txt_mv 2001
dc.format_txt_mv Villanova Faculty Authorship
dc.identifier_txt_mv vudl:177843
dc.source_txt_mv Journal of Personality Assessment 76 (2), 2001, 315-332.
dc.language_txt_mv en
author Kurtz, John E.
Parrish, Catherine L.
spellingShingle Kurtz, John E.
Parrish, Catherine L.
Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
author_facet Kurtz, John E.
Parrish, Catherine L.
dc_source_str_mv Journal of Personality Assessment 76 (2), 2001, 315-332.
format Villanova Faculty Authorship
author_sort Kurtz, John E.
dc_date_str 2001
dc_title_str Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
description In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder,&Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of psychometric tests. Data were obtained from 2 undergraduate student samples, a self-report group (n = 132) who provided NEO–PI–R self-ratings on 2 occasions separated by a 7- to 14-day interval and an informant group (n = 109) who provided ratings of well-known friends or relatives on 2 occasions separated by a 6 month interval. INC scores from the Time 1 protocols were used to divide these samples into low, moderate, and elevated inconsistency groups. In both samples, these 3 groups showed equivalent levels of reliability and validity as measured by: contingency coefficients for the 20 INC item responses across occasions; test–retest intraclass correlations of NEO–PI–R domain scores; convergent correlations with Goldberg’s (1992) Bipolar Adjective Scale scores; and discriminant correlations between the 5 NEO–PI–R domain scores. The similarity of results across self-report and informant assessment contexts provides additional evidence that semantic consistency approaches to assessing protocol validity may overestimate the prevalence of random or careless response behavior in standard administration conditions. Several theories are discussed that accommodate the existence of valid inconsistency in structured personality assessment.
title Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
title_full Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
title_fullStr Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
title_full_unstemmed Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
title_short Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEO–PI–R.
title_sort semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: the case of the neo–pi–r.
publishDate 2001
normalized_sort_date 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z
language English
collection_title_sort_str semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: the case of the neo–pi–r.
relsext.sequence_txt_mv vudl:177809#12
fgs.createdBy_txt_mv fedoraAdmin
fgs.state_txt_mv Active
relsext.hasLegacyURL_txt_mv http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Villanova%20Digital%20Collection/Faculty%20Fulltext/Kurtz%20John/KurtzJohn-a2f66e65-3564-4c34-bd5e-efcd2a5a2851.xml
relsext.hasModel_txt_mv http://hades.library.villanova.edu:8080/rest/vudl-system:CollectionModel
http://hades.library.villanova.edu:8080/rest/vudl-system:ResourceCollection
http://hades.library.villanova.edu:8080/rest/vudl-system:CoreModel
relsext.sortOn_txt_mv title
fgs.lastModifiedDate_txt_mv 2021-04-12T19:08:17.887Z
fgs.type_txt_mv http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container
http://fedora.info/definitions/v4/repository#Container
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#RDFSource
http://fedora.info/definitions/v4/repository#Resource
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#BasicContainer
fgs.lastModifiedBy_txt_mv fedoraAdmin
fgs.label_txt_mv Semantic Response Consistency and Protocol Validity in Structured Personality Assessment: The Case of the NEOPIR.
fgs.ownerId_txt_mv diglibEditor
relsext.isMemberOf_txt_mv http://hades.library.villanova.edu:8080/rest/vudl:177809
relsext.itemID_txt_mv oai:digital.library.villanova.edu:vudl:177843
fgs.createdDate_txt_mv 2013-01-22T06:50:40.569Z
has_order_str no
agent.name_txt_mv Falvey Memorial Library, Villanova University
KHL
license.mdRef_str http://digital.library.villanova.edu/copyright.html
license_str protected
has_thumbnail_str true
THUMBNAIL_contentDigest_digest_str 203c69e18f4f46c81e9892448d2c07cd
first_indexed 2014-01-11T23:45:41Z
last_indexed 2021-04-12T19:32:41Z
_version_ 1785892980244086784
subpages