Опыт использования бифакторных моделей для снижения эффектов социальной желательности на материале нормативного опросника универсальных компетенций
Аннотация
Одним из существенных недостатков опросных методов психологического тестирования является искажение итоговых баллов по измеряемым конструктам, обусловленное эффектами социальной желательности. Угроза валидности решений, принимаемых на основании результатов опроса, которую создает социальная желательность, особенно значима в условиях высоких ставок, например при отборе на должность. При этом дискуссионным остается вопрос о связи разных компонентов социальной желательности с наиболее часто измеряемыми личностными конструктами. На материале авторского нормативного опросника универсальных компетенций рассматривается возможность внесения корректировок в итоговые баллы по измеряемым конструктам с использованием разработанных шкал эгоистической и моралистической социальной желательности. Обсуждается использование формулировок утверждений, нейтральных к социальной желательности и отражающих наиболее высокую степень выраженности измеряемого индикатора, в качестве способа минимизировать актуализацию намерения давать социально желательные ответы у респондента.
Эмпирическую основу исследования составили данные апробации опросника, проведенной весной 2022 г., в ходе которой получены ответы 579 респондентов по 49 компетенциям. Выполнена оценка качества разработанных шкал социальной желательности и проведено моделирование каждой из шкал универсальных компетенций с включением шкалы социальной желательности. Данные анализировались в рамках структурного моделирования — конфирматорного факторного анализа с использованием бифакторных моделей для каждой из измеряемых компетенций.
Установлено, что использование шкалы эгоистической социальной желательности в качестве основания для корректировки факторных баллов по измеряемым компетенциям имеет в целом удовлетворительные психометрические показатели, однако опасение вызывает сравнительно большая ошибка измерения. Рассматриваются достоинства и недостатки как используемого подхода, так и других наиболее часто применяемых практик, направленных на снижение эффектов социальной желательности в академической и бизнес-среде.
Скачивания
Литература
Allport G.W. (1937) Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Anderson J.R. (1976) Language, Memory, and Thought. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anglim J., Morse G., de Vries R.E., MacCann C., Marty A. (2017) Comparing Job Applicants to Non-Applicants Using an Item-Level Bifactor Model on the HEXACO Personality Inventory. European Journal of Personality, vol. 31, no 6, pp. 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2120
Anusic I., Schimmack U., Pinkus R.T., Lockwood P. (2009) The Nature and Structure of Correlations among Big Five Ratings: The Halo-Alpha-Beta Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 97, no 6, pp. 1142–1156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017159
Ashton M.C., Lee K., de Vries R.E. (2014) The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors: A Review of Research and Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 18, no 2, pp. 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
Bäckström M., Björklund F. (2020) The Properties and Utility of Less Evaluative Personality Scales: Reduction of Social Desirability; Increase of Construct and Discriminant Validity. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, October, Article no 560271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560271
Bäckström M., Björklund F., Larsson M.R. (2009) Five-Factor Inventories Have a Major General Factor Related to Social Desirability Which Can Be Reduced by Framing Items Neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 43, no 3, pp. 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
Biderman M.D., Nguyen N.T., Cunningham C.J., Ghorbani N. (2011) The Ubiquity of Common Method Variance: The Case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 45, no 5, pp. 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.001
Birkeland S.A., Manson T.M., Kisamore J.L., Brannick M.T., Smith M.A. (2006) A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 14, no 4, pp. 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x
Bowen C., Martin B.A., Hunt S.T. (2002) A Comparison of Ipsative and Normative Approaches for Ability to Control Faking In Personality Questionnaires. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 10, no 3, pp. 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028952
Brown T.A. (2015) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Brown A., Maydeu-Olivares A. (2013) How IRT Can Solve Problems of Ipsative Data in Forced-Choice Questionnaires. Psychological Methods, vol. 18, no 1, pp. 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030641
Bryan C. J., Adams G. S., Monin B. (2013) When Cheating Would Make You a Cheater: Implicating the Self Prevents Unethical Behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 142, no 4, pp. 1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030655.supp
Cattell H.E.P., Mead A.D. (2008) The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. Vol. 2. Personality Measurement and Testing (eds G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, D.H. Saklofske), Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 135–159. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7
Chen Z., Watson P., Biderman M., Ghorbani N. (2016) Investigating the Properties of the General Factor (M) in Bifactor Models Applied to Big Five or HEXACO Data in Terms of Method or Meaning. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, vol. 35, June, pp. 216–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236615590587
Christiansen N.D., Burns G.N., Montgomery G.E. (2005) Reconsidering Forced-Choice Item Formats for Applicant Personality Assessment. Human Performance, vol. 18, no 3, pp. 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1803_4
Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. (1992) The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its Relevance to Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, vol. 6, no 4, pp. 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
Crowne D.P., Marlowe D. (1960) A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, vol. 24, no 4, pp. 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
DiStefano C., Zhu M., Mîndrilă D. (2009) Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations for the Applied Researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, vol. 14, no 20. https://doi.org/10.7275/da8t-4g52
Eysenck S.B.G., Eysenck H.J. (1964) Personality of Judges as a Factor in the Validity of Their Judgments of Extraversion-Introversion. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1964.tb00418.x
Ferrando P.J., Lorenzo-Seva U., Chico E. (2009) A General Factor-Analytic Procedure for Assessing Response Bias in Questionnaire Measures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 16, no 2, pp. 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751374
García-Izquierdo A.L., Ramos-Villagrasa P.J., Lubiano M.A. (2020) Developing Biodata for Public Manager Selection Purposes: A Comparison between Fuzzy Logic and Traditional Methods. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, vol. 36, no 3, pp. 231–242. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a22
Goffin R.D., Christiansen N.D. (2003) Correcting Personality Tests for Faking: A Review of Popular Personality Tests and an Initial Survey of Researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 11, no 4, pp. 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075x.2003.00256.x
Golubovich J., Lake C.J., Anguiano-Carrasco C., Seybert J. (2020) Measuring Achievement Striving via a Situational Judgment Test: The Value of Additional Context. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 36, no 2, pp. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a15
Grimm P. (2010) Social Desirability Bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing (eds J. Sheth, N. Malhotra), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
Heggestad E.D., Morrison M., Reeve C.L., McCloy R.A. (2006) Forced-Choice Assessments of Personality for Selection: Evaluating Issues of Normative Assessment and Faking Resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 91, no 1, pp. 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.9
Hicks L.E. (1970) Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative, and Forced-Choice Normative Measures. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no 3, pp. 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029780
Holzinger K.J., Swineford F. (1937) The Bi-Factor Method. Psychometrika, vol. 2, March, pp. 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287965
Hough L. (1998) Effects of Intentional Distortion in Personality Measurement and Evaluation of Suggested Palliatives. Human Performance, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_6
Huang J.L., Curran P.G., Keeney J., Poposki E.M., DeShon R.P. (2011) Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 27, no 1, pp. 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8
Jackson D.N. (1984) Personality Research from Manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists.
Kam C.C.S. (2020) Bifactor Model Is Not the Best-Fitting Model for Self-Esteem: Investigation with a Novel Technique. Assessment, vol. 28, no 7, Article no 1073191120949916. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319112094991
Kreitchmann R.S., Abad F.J., Ponsoda V., Nieto M.D., Morillo D. (2019) Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, October, Article no 2309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
Krosnick J.A. (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 50, pp. 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
Kuzminov Y., Sorokin P., Froumin I. (2019) Generic and Specific Skills as Components of Human Capital: New Challenges for Education Theory and Practice. Foresight and STI Governance, vol. 13, no 2, pp. 19–41. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2019.2.19.41
Larson R.B. (2018) Controlling Social Desirability Bias. International Journal of Market Research, vol. 61, no 5, pp. 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Lee M.D., Criss A.H., Devezer B., Donkin C., Etz A., Leite F.P., et al. (2019) Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science. Paper presented at Workshop on Robust Social Science (St. Petersburg, FL, 2018, June). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dmfhk
Martínez A., Moscoso S., Lado M. (2021) Faking Effects on the Factor Structure of a Quasi-Ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventory. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 37, no 1, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a7
McCrae R.R., Costa P.T. (1983) Social Desirability Scales: More Substance Than Style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 51, no 6, pp. 882–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.51.6.882
McFarland L.A., Ryan A.M. (2006) Toward an Integrated Model of Applicant Faking Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 36, no 4, pp. 979–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00052.x
Meade A.W. (2004) Psychometric Problems and Issues Involved with Creating and Using Ipsative Measures for Selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, no 4, pp. 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596504
Moorman R.H., Podsakoff P.M. (1992) A Meta-Analytic Review and Empirical Test of the Potential Confounding Effects of Social Desirability Response Sets in Organizational Behaviour Research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 65, no 2, pp. 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x
Mueller-Hanson R., Heggestad E.D., Thornton G.C. (2003) Faking and Selection: Considering the Use of Personality from Select-In and Select-Out Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no 2, pp. 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348
Musek J. (2007) A General Factor of Personality: Evidence for the Big One in the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 41, no 6, pp. 1213–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003
Neeley S.M., Cronley M.L. (2004) When Research Participants Don`t Tell It Like It Is: Pinpointing the Effects of Social Desirability Bias Using Self Vs. Indirect-Questioning. ACR North American Advances, vol. 31, pp. 432–433.
Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C. (2001) Integrity Tests and Other Criterion-Focused Occupational Personality Scales (COPS) Used in Personnel Selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 9, no 1–2, pp. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00161
Osin E.N. (2009) Social Desirability in Positive Psychology: Bias or Desirable Sociality? Understanding Positive Life. Research and Practice on Positive Psychology (ed. T. Freire), Lisbon: Climepsi Editores, pp. 421–442.
Paulhus D.L. (1998) Manual for the Paulhus Deception Scales: BIDR Version 7. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Paulhus D.L. (1991) Measurement and Control of Response Bias. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (eds J.P. Robinson, P. Shaver, L.S. Wrightsman), San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 17–59.
Paulhus D.L., Vazire S. (2007) The Self-Report Method. Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (eds R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, R.F. Krueger), New York, London: The Guilford, pp. 224–239.
Reise S.P. (2012) The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 47, no 5, pp. 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
Rolland J.P., Mogenet J.L. (2001) Système de Description en Cinq Dimensions (D5D). Manuel Réservé aux Psychologues. Paris: Les Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
Sackett P.R., Lievens F., van Iddekinge C.H., Kuncel N.R. (2017) Individual Differences and Their Measurement: A Review of 100 Years of Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 102, no 3, pp. 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000151
Salgado F.J. (2005) Personality and Social Desirability in Organizational Settings: Practical Implications for Work and Organizational Psychology. Papeles del Psicologo, vol. 26, January, pp. 115–128.
Salgado J.F. (2016) A Theoretical Model of Psychometric Effects of Faking on Assessment Procedures: Empirical Findings and Implications for Personality at Work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 24, no 3, pp. 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12142
SHL (1999) OPQ32 Manual and User’s Guide. Thames Ditton, Surrey: SHL Group.
Thurstone L.L. (1935) The Vectors of Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Tracey T.J. (2016) A Note on Socially Desirable Responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 63, no 2, pp. 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000135
Uziel L. (2010) Rethinking Social Desirability Scales: From Impression Management to Interpersonally Oriented Self-Control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 5, no 3, pp. 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369465
Van der Linden D., te Nijenhuis J., Bakker A.B. (2010) The General Factor of Personality: A Meta-Analysis of Big Five Intercorrelations and a Criterion-Related Validity Study. Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 44, no 3, pp. 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003
Viladrich C., Angulo-Brunet A., Doval E. (2017) A Journey around Alpha and Omega to Estimate Internal Consistency Reliability. Anales de Psicología, vol. 33, no 3, pp. 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
