When Middle Really Means “Top” or “Bottom”: An Analysis of the 16PF5 Using Bock's Nominal Response Model

References

• Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2004). Replicability of first-order 16PF-5 factors: An analysis of three parcelling methods. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 667–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aluja, A., Blanch, A., & García, L. F. (2005). Reanalyzing the 16PF-5 second order structure: Exploratory versus confirmatory factorial analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 343–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2011). Sex differences in the 16PF5, test of measurement invariance and mean differences in the US standardization sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 553–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2010). Issues that should not be overlooked in dominance versus ideal point controversy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 489–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Investigating the hierarchical factor structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: An application of the Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 290–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Dalal, D. K., Carter, N. T., & Lake, C. J. (2014). Middle response scale options are inappropriate for ideal point scales. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 463–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancer, L. J., & Woods, S. A. (2006). Higher-order factor structures and intercorrelations of the 16PF5 and FIRO-B. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 385–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 465–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuBois, B., & Burns, J. A. (1975). An analysis of the meaning of the question mark response category in attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 869–884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, B. B., & Mead, A. D. (2000). Assessment of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the 16PF questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 787–807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Glas, C. A. (2010). Preliminary manual of the software program Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
   Google Scholar
• González-Romá, V., & Espejo, B. (2003). Testing the middle response categories “Not sure,” “In between” and “?” in polytomous items. Psicothema, 15, 278–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández, A., Drasgow, F., & González-Romá, V. (2004). Investigating the functioning of the middle category by means of a mixed-measurement model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 687–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández, A., Espejo, B., González-Romá, V., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2001). Escalas de respuesta tipo Likert: ¿es relevante la alternativa indiferente? [Likert-type response scales: Is the response category indifferent relevant?]. Metodología de Encuestas, 2, 135–150.
   Google Scholar
• Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Batey, M. (2014). An investigation of the factor structure of the 16PF, Version 5: A confirmatory factor and invariance analysis. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 38–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 489–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2013). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 254–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 251–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, L. S., & Krug, S. E. (1984). Psychometric function of the “neutral” response option in clinical personality scales. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 7, 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Mellenbergh, G. J. (1995). Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, K., & Reise, P. (2014). Detecting faulty within-item category functioning within the nominal response model. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 386–405). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, K., Reise, S., Cai, L., & Hays, R. D. (2011). Using the nominal response model to evaluate response category discrimination in the PROMIS emotional distress item pools. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 523–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rammstedt, B., & Krebs, D. (2007). Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? Assessing the Big Five dimensions of personality with different response scales in a dependent sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 32–38.
   Google Scholar
• Reif, M. (2014). mcIRT: IRT models for multiple choice items. R package version 0.40. Retrieved from https://github.com/manuelreif/mcIRT
   Google Scholar
• Rossier, J., Meyer de Stadelhofen, F., & Berthoud, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI–R and the 16PF5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1972). A general model for free-response data. Psychometrika Monograph, 18.
   Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1996). Evaluation of mathematical models for ordered polychotomous responses. Behaviormetrika, 23, 17–35.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1989). Multiple-choice models: The distractors are also part of the item. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 161–176.
   Google Scholar
• Weekers, A. M., & Meijer, R. R. (2008). Scaling response processes on personality items using unfolding and dominance models. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 65–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar