Pruebas de elección forzosa: visión actual y recomendaciones
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.22.1.43413Palabras clave:
Personalidad, Elección Forzosa, Tests Adaptativos Informatizados, On-the-flyResumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo ofrecer una visión actual de las pruebas de elección forzosa y proporcionar recomendaciones para su diseño y construcción. Aunque estas pruebas ayudan a superar limitaciones como los sesgos de deseabilidad social y de respuesta extrema, comunes en los formatos de respuesta graduada, presentan desafíos técnicos relacionados con la ipsatividad de las puntuaciones. Este artículo presenta modelos psicométricos basados en la Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem (TRI), como el modelo Thurstoniano de TRI para preferencias (TIRT) y el modelo de preferencia por pares multi-unidimensional (MUPP), que mejoran la estimación de los rasgos y permiten un ensamblaje óptimo de ítems en bloques. Se identifican factores de diseño del cuestionario, como la polaridad de los ítems ensamblados, que pueden afectar la calidad de las puntuaciones obtenidas. Además, se exploran los beneficios de la TRI en el desarrollo de tests adaptativos informatizados on-the-fly, donde los ítems se emparejan durante la prueba en función de las respuestas previas del evaluado, optimizando la precisión de las puntuaciones. Finalmente, se ofrece una guía paso a paso para la construcción de pruebas de elección forzosa, ilustrada con un ejemplo empírico y código en R de acceso abierto.
Descargas
Citas
Abad, F. J., Kreitchmann, R. S., Sorrel, M. A., Nájera, P., García-Garzón, E., Garrido, L. E. y Jiménez, M. (2022). Construyendo test adaptativos de elección forzosa “On the Fly” para la medición de la personalidad [Building Adaptive Forced Choice Tests “On the Fly” for Personality Measurement]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 43(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.2982
Brennan, R. L. y Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
Brown, A. y Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2010). Issues that Should not Be Overlooked in the Dominance versus Ideal Point Controversy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01277.x
Brown, A. y Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item Response Modeling of Forced-Choice Questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164410375112
Brown, A. y Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2012). Fitting a Thurstonian IRT Model to Forced-Choice Data Using Mplus. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1135–1147. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0217-x
Brown, A. y Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2018a). Modelling forced-choice response formats. En P. Irwing, T. Booth y D. J. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing (pp. 523–569). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch18
Brown, A. y Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2018b). Ordinal Factor Analysis of Graded-Preference Questionnaire Data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392247
Bürkner, P.-C., Schulte, N. y Holling, H. (2019). On the Statistical and Practical Limitations of Thurstonian IRT Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(5), 827–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419832063
Cao, M. y Drasgow, F. (2019). Does Forcing Reduce Faking? A Meta-Analytic Review of Forced-Choice Personality Measures in High-Stakes Situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
Graña, D. F., Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J. y Sorrel, M. A. (2024). Equally vs. Unequally Keyed Blocks in Forced-Choice Questionnaires: Implications on Validity and Reliability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2420869
Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L. y McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-choice Assessments of Personality for Selection: Evaluating Issues of Normative Assessment and Faking Resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 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, 74(3), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029780
Hontangas, P. M., de la Torre, J., Ponsoda, V., Leenen, I., Morillo, D. y Abad, F. J. (2015). Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(8), 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621615585851
Hontangas, P. M., Leenen, I. y de la Torre, J. (2016). Traditional Scores versus IRT Estimates on Forced-Choice Tests Based on a Dominance Model. Psicothema, 28(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2015.204
Hughes, A. W., Dunlop, P. D., Holtrop, D. y Wee, S. (2021). Spotting the “ideal” Personality Response: Effects of Item Matching in Forced Choice Measures for Personnel Selection. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 20(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000267
Jansen, M. T. y Schulze, R. (2023). Linear Factor Analytic Thurstonian Forced-Choice Models: Current Status and Issues. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(4), 660–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231205011
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring Thirty Facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public Domain Inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J. y Sorrel, M. A. (2022). A Genetic Algorithm for Optimal Assembly of Pairwise Forced-Choice Questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1476–1492. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01677-4
Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J., Ponsoda, V., Nieto, M. D. y Morillo, D. (2019). Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Artículo 2309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309
Kreitchmann, R. S., Sorrel, M. A. y Abad, F. J. (2023). On Bank Assembly and Block Selection in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Adaptive Assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 83(2), 294–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644221087986
Li, M., Sun, T. y Zhang, B. (2022). autoFC: An R Package for Automatic Item Pairing in Forced-Choice Test Construction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 46(1), 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216211051726
Li, M., Zhang, B., Li, L., Sun, T. y Brown, A. (2024). Mix-keying or Desirability-Matching in the Construction of Forced-Choice Measures? An Empirical Investigation and Practical Recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 0(0). Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281241229784
Lin, Y. y Brown, A. (2017). Influence of Context on Item Parameters in Forced-Choice Personality Assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164416646162
Martínez, A. y Salgado, J. F. (2021). A Meta-Analysis of the Faking Resistance of Forced-Choice Personality Inventories. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Artículo 732241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732241
Morillo, D., Abad, F. J., Kreitchmann, R. S., Leenen, I., Hontangas, P. y Ponsoda, V. (2019). The Journey from Likert to Forced-Choice Questionnaires: Evidence of the Invariance of Item Parameters. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a11
Morillo, D., Leenen, I., Abad, F. J., Hontangas, P., de la Torre, J. y Ponsoda, V. (2016). A Dominance Variant under the Multi-Unidimensional Pairwise-Preference Framework: Model Formulation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40(7), 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616662226
Muthen, L. K. y Muthen, B. O. (2018). Mplus User’s Guide (8ª ed.). Muthen & Muthen.
Nie, L., Xu, P. y Hu, D. (2024). Multidimensional IRT for Forced Choice Tests: A Literature Review. Heliyon, 10(5), Artículo e26884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26884
Pavlov, G. (2024). An Investigation of Effects of Instruction Set on Item Desirability Matching. Personality and Individual Differences, 216, Artículo 112423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.1124233
Pavlov, G., Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A. y Fairchild, A. (2021). Item Desirability Matching in Forced-Choice Test Construction. Personality and Individual Differences, 183, Artículo 111114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111114
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Sass, R., Frick, S., Reips, U.-D. y Wetzel, E. (2020). Taking the Test Taker’s Perspective: Response Process and Test Motivation in Multidimensional Forced-Choice versus Rating Scale Instruments. Assessment, 27(3), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118762049
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S. y 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(3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621604273988
Tsutsui, S. (2006). Node Histogram vs. Edge histogram: A Comparison of Probabilistic Model-Building Genetic Algorithms in Permutation Domains. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1939–1946. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2006.1688544
Zavala, A. (1965). Development of the forced-choice rating scale technique. Psychological Bulletin, 63(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021567
Zhang, B., Luo, J. y Li, J. (2024). Moving Beyond Likert and Traditional Forced-Choice Scales: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Graded Forced-Choice Format. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 59(3), 434–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2235682
Zhang, B., Sun, T., Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., Nye, C. D., Stark, S. y White, L. A. (2020). Though Forced, Still Valid: Psychometric Equivalence of Forced-Choice and Single-Statement Measures. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836486
Zheng, C., Liu, J., Li, Y., Xu, P., Zhang, B., Wei, R., Zhang, W., Liu, B. y Huang, J. (2024). A 2PLM-RANK Multidimensional Forced-Choice Model and its Fast Estimation Algorithm. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 6363–6388. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02315-x
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Facultad de Psicología
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
La revista Acción Psicológica se publica bajo licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento – NoComercial (CC BY-NC). Las opiniones y contenidos de los artículos publicados en Acción Psicológica son de responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen la opinión y política científica de la revista. También serán responsables de proporcionar copias de los datos en bruto, puntuaciones, y, en general, material experimental relevante a los lectores interesados.
Copyright Note
Acción Psicológica is published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial (CC BY-NC). The opinions and contents of the articles published in Acción Psicológica are responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the scientific and political opinion of the journal. Authors are also responsible for providing copies of the raw data, ratings, and, in general, relevant experimental material to interested readers.
