IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v4y2014i3p2158244014547196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Big Five Measurement via Q-Sort

Author

Listed:
  • Chris D. Fluckinger

Abstract

Socially desirable responding presents a difficult challenge in measuring personality. I tested whether a partially ipsative measure—a normatively scored Q-sort containing traditional Big Five items—would produce personality scores indicative of less socially desirable responding compared with Likert-based measures. Across both instructions to respond honestly and in the context of applying for a job, the Q-sort produced lower mean scores, lower intercorrelations between dimensions, and similar validity in predicting supervisor performance ratings to Likert. In addition, the Q-sort produced a more orthogonal structure (but not fully orthogonal) when modeled at the latent level. These results indicate that the Q-sort method did constrain socially desirable responding. Researchers and practitioners should consider Big Five measurement via Q-sort for contexts in which high socially desirable responding is expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris D. Fluckinger, 2014. "Big Five Measurement via Q-Sort," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:3:p:2158244014547196
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014547196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014547196
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014547196?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hough, Leaetta M. & Oswald, Frederick L., 2008. "Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Reflections, Progress, and Prospects," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 272-290, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalie Kopytko & Alessio Pruneddu, 2018. "Triple-win strategy? Why is not everyone doing it? A participant-driven research method to reveal barriers to crop rotation in Ukraine," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 189-204, July.
    2. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bing, Mark N. & Kluemper, Don & Kristl Davison, H. & Taylor, Shannon & Novicevic, Milorad, 2011. "Overclaiming as a measure of faking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 148-162, September.
    2. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Madrid, Hector P., 2016. "Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-44.
    3. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:3:p:2158244014547196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.