Previous studies showed that contextualization can improve the reliability and criterion-related validity of single-statement personality measures. However, it is unknown whether contextualization has similar effects on forced-choice measures of personality. If so, what type of contextualization is the most effective? The present study provides the first empirical examination of the effects of three types of contextualization on the reliability and criterion-related validity of forced-choice personality measures using an experimental design and cross-validates results through two forced-choice personality measures. We also report the effect of contextualization on discriminant validity. Results showed that while contextualization has no systematic effect on the reliability of forced-choice scores, it improves their criterion-related validity substantially. Specifically, contextualization of both the statements and instructions yielded the highest levels of criterion-related validity, followed by statement contextualization only and then instruction contextualization only. The original scales with no contextualization showed the lowest levels of criterion-related validity. As for discriminant validity, contextualization increased intercorrelations. These patterns were well replicated across the two forced-choice scales.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
