Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-nc56l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:03:44.380Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Item Response Models for Forced-Choice Questionnaires: A Common Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Anna Brown
Anna Brown*
Affiliation:
University of Kent
*
Correspondence should be made to Anna Brown, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK. Email: A.A.Brown@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In forced-choice questionnaires, respondents have to make choices between two or more items presented at the same time. Several IRT models have been developed to link respondent choices to underlying psychological attributes, including the recent MUPP (Stark et al. in Appl Psychol Meas 29:184–203, 2005) and Thurstonian IRT (Brown and Maydeu-Olivares in Educ Psychol Meas 71:460–502, 2011) models. In the present article, a common framework is proposed that describes forced-choice models along three axes: (1) the forced-choice format used; (2) the measurement model for the relationships between items and psychological attributes they measure; and (3) the decision model for choice behavior. Using the framework, fundamental properties of forced-choice measurement of individual differences are considered. It is shown that the scale origin for the attributes is generally identified in questionnaires using either unidimensional or multidimensional comparisons. Both dominance and ideal point models can be used to provide accurate forced-choice measurement; and the rules governing accurate person score estimation with these models are remarkably similar.

Keywords

forced choiceipsative dataThurstonian choice modelunfolding modelBradley–Terry modeldominance modelideal point model
Type
Original paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 135 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 The Psychometric Society

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

Andersen, E.B. (1976). Paired comparisons with individual differences. Psychometrika, 41(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrich, D. (1989). A probabilistic IRT model for unfolding preference data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 193–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrich, D. (1995). Hyperbolic cosine latent trait models for unfolding direct-responses and pairwise preferences. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J.F., & Hays, W.L. (1960). Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 25, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenholt, U. (2004). Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psychological Methods, 9, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenholt, U. (2006). Thurstonian-based analyses: Past, present and future utilities. Psychometrika, 71(4), 615–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, R.A. (1953). Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation. Biometrics, 9, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324–345.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E. (1989). Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data. Psychometrika, 54, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Doing less but getting more: Improving forced-choice measures with IRT. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Brown, A. & Bartram, D. (2009–2011). OPQ32r Technical Manual. Surrey, UK: SHL Group.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2010). Issues that should not be overlooked in the dominance versus ideal point controversy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 460–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2012). Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1135–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18, 36–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (in press). Modeling forced-choice response formats. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chan, W. (2003). Analyzing ipsative data in psychological research. Behaviormetrika, 30, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, M.W.L., & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, N., Burns, G., & Montgomery, G. (2005). Reconsidering the use of forced-choice formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemans, W. V. (1966). An analytical and empirical examination of some properties of ipsative measures. Psychometric Monographs, 14.Google Scholar
Coombs, C.H. (1950). Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 57, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C.H. (1960). A theory of data. Psychological Review, 67, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Soete, G., & Carroll, J.D. (1983). A maximum likelihood method for fitting the wandering vector model. Psychometrika, 48, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Stark, S. (2009). Test theory and personality measurement. In Butcher, J.N. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment. London: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J., & Mead, A. D. (2014, July 7). Effect of personality item writing on psychometric properties of ideal-point and Likert scales. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D., Wroblewski, V., & Ashton, M. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution?. Human Performance, 13, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Luce, R.D. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, B.A., Bowen, C-C, & Hunt, S.T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires?. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1999). Thurstonian modeling of ranking data via mean and covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 64, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2005). Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychological Methods, 10, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2008). Modeling subjective health outcomes: Top 10 reasons to use Thurstone’s method. Medical Care, 46, 346–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Brown, A. (2010). Item response modeling of paired comparison and ranking data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 935–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCloy, R., Heggestad, E., & Reeve, C. (2005). A silk purse from the sow’s ear: Retrieving normative information from multidimensional forced-choice items. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 222–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1976). Quantal choice analysis: A survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–390.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. The American Economic Review, 91(3), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meade, A. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77, 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Roberts, J.S., Donoghue, J.R., & Laughlin, J.E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H.J., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R.N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2002). An EM approach to parameter estimation for the Zinnes and Griggs paired comparison IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. (1987). Analysis of covariance structures and probabilistic binary choice data. Communication and Cognition, 20, 45–62.Google Scholar
Takane, Y. (1996). An item response model for multidimensional analysis of multiple choice data. Behaviormetrika, 23, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., & De Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L.L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L.L. (1929). The measurement of psychological value. In Smith, T.V., & Wright, W.K. (Eds.), Essays in philosophy by seventeen doctors of philosophy of the University of Chicago (pp. 157–174). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L.L. (1931). Rank order as a psychophysical method. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilopoulos, N.L., Cucina, J.M., Dyomina, N.V., Morewitz, C.L., & Reilly, R.R. (2006). Forced-choice personality tests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability?. Human Performance, 19, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinnes, J.L., & Griggs, R.A. (1974). Probabilistic, multidimensional unfolding analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar