Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tzeng, O. C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparative Evaluation of Four Response Formats in Personality Ratings

Oliver C. S. Tzeng

Purdue University School of Science

Four basic response formats that are most frequently used in personality ratings were distinguished in terms of two psychometric criteria—the neutral response option and hierarchical gradients on the underlying measurement continuum. Theoretical discussions of their relative superiorities were substantiated by a comparative evaluation of empirical personality ratings under different formats for the same PRF scale items. Results indicated the existence of three types of inter-format relationships for all personality dimensions measured. In addition, the free-choice discriminating format was found to be the most appropriate for future personality and trait attribution research. Finally, implications were made concerning the validity and utility of various measurement instruments using different response formats.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 43, No. 4, 935-950 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/001316448304300401
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
T. W. Frazier, E. A. Youngstrom, J. J. Glutting, and M. W. Watkins
ADHD and Achievement: Meta-Analysis of the Child, Adolescent, and Adult Literatures and a Concomitant Study With College Students
J Learn Disabil, February 1, 2007; 40(1): 49 - 65.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
P. J. Ferrando
A Kernel Density Analysis of Continuous Typical-Response Scales
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2003; 63(5): 809 - 824.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
O. C. S. Tzeng, R. Ware, and N. Bharadwaj
Comparison between Continuous Bipolar and Unipolar Ratings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1991; 51(3): 681 - 690.
[Abstract]