Download Computerized Adaptive Personality Assesment PDF

TitleComputerized Adaptive Personality Assesment
File Size1.1 MB
Total Pages175
Table of Contents
                            DEVELOPMENT OF SNAP-CAT
Item Calibration
Unidimensionality Assumption
Item Parameter Estimation
	Ratio of
		Scale (items) ( AIC Eigenvalues RMSR GFI
			Negative Temperament (28) .92 .29 8.9 .060 .987
				Positive Temperament (26) .88 .22 4.1 .093 .955
				Dependency (18) 8 55.6 33.5 .93
				Dependency (18) 36.0 16.2 40.5 14.9
	Figure 2.5:  Example of SNAP-CAT Item Presentation Screen.
Testing Procedures
Mean   36.2     37.7
	Manipulativeness (20) 12.5 (2.4) 37.6 41.1 (12.8) 71.5 (14.7
			Mean .88 .87 .85 .82 .88 .85 .88 .84 .87 .85
			Mean .94 .94 .98 .98
		Dependency (18) .84 .84 .82 .84
			Mean .82 .85 .83 .85
		Scale R ( R ( R ( R ( R ( R (
		Scale R ( R ( R ( R ( R ( R (
		Factor/Matrix Type 1 2 3 1 2 3 T1-T2
		2. P&P full-scale thetas .99   .99   .97
		Positive Affectivity
		Exhibitionism 14.696 .985 .028 15.496 .985 .024
Summary of Findings
	Table B1:  Negative Temperament IRT Parameters
		NEG001 241 1.225 0.198 2.689
		NEG002 244 1.123 -0.492 1.234
		M  0.977 -0.069 1.910
	Table B2:  Mistrust IRT Parameters
		MIS001 8 0.549 1.498 1.273
	Table B3:  Manipulativeness IRT Parameters
		MAN001 12 0.453 0.172 2.099
	Table B4:  Aggression IRT Parameters
		AGG014 148 0.567 0.910 3.691
	Table B5:  Self-harm IRT Parameters
	Table B6:  Eccentric Perceptions IRT Parameters
		ECC001 7 0.549 1.748 2.220
	Table B7:  Dependency IRT Parameters
		M  0.854 0.961 1.669
	Table B8:  Positive Temperament IRT Parameters
		M  0.835 -0.717 1.817
	Table B9:  Exhibitionism IRT Parameters
	Table B10:  Entitlement IRT Parameters
		ENT003 83 0.460 0.291 3.004
	Table B11:  Detachment IRT Parameters
	Table B12:  Disinhibition IRT Parameters
	Table B13:  Impulsivity IRT Parameters
	Table B14:  Propriety IRT Parameters
	Table B15:  Workaholism IRT Parameters
	Note.  Paper-and-pencil scores are full-scale thetas.  P-P =
		Negative Temperament (28) 13.7 (7.4) 14.1 (6.9) 14.3 (6.5)
		Self-harm (16) 2.1 (2.8) 1.9 (2.6) 2.7 (2.0)
		Entitlement (16) 8.4 (3.5) 8.0 (3.3) 8.6 (3.0)
		Negative Temperament (28) 13.1 (7.3) 13.3 (7.3) 13.9 (6.9)
		Negative Temperament -.18 (.97) -.15 (.93) -.10 (.91)
Document Text Contents
Page 87

Despite this major difference, the factor loadings were reasonably comparable

with those identified elsewhere (e.g., Clark, 1993). Across administration modes, scoring

methods, and time, the SNAP scales formed three general factors that were labeled

Negative Affectivity (NA), Positive Affectivity (PA), and Disinhibition vs. Constraint

(DvC). The NA factor included consistent and strong loadings for Negative

Temperament, Mistrust, Aggression, Self-harm, and Eccentric Perceptions,

Manipulativeness (which split with DvC), and Detachment (which split with PA).

Dependency, which usually loads less strongly on the first factor, did the same here. PA

included strong and relatively stable loadings for Positive Temperament, Exhibitionism,

Entitlement, and Detachment. In addition, Workaholism and Propriety loaded

moderately on PA in the computerized groups on both the raw and theta metrics. Finally,

the DvC factor yielded high loadings for Disinhibition, Impulsivity, Propriety,

Workaholism, and Manipulativeness (which split with NA). Two observations are

notable. First, the structure was remarkably similar from Time 1 to Time 2. Second,

likely owing to the overlapping variance associated with Disinhibition, loadings for

Disinhibition on the DvC factor were greater than those usually found (e.g., Clark, 1993).

To quantify the structural similarity of these loading matrices, congruence

coefficients (Tucker, 1951) were computed and appear in Table 3.16. In general,

congruence coefficients range from –1.0 to +1.0 and are interpreted in a manner similar

to Pearson correlation coefficients. Values at or above +.90 generally indicate good

factor congruence across structures. The pattern of coefficients was consistent across

factors at Times 1 and 2. Two observations are noteworthy. The first is that all

coefficients are .90 or above, suggesting that the factor structure of the SNAP was


Page 88

To assess external structural similarity, correlations were computed among SNAP

scales and two established measures of personality—the BFI and EPQ-R—which have

been shown to correlate with the SNAP in meaningful and predictable ways (e.g., Clark,

1993; Clark et al., 1994; Reynolds & Clark, 2001). Correlations with the BFI appear in

Tables 3.17 and 3.18 for Times 1 and 2, respectively. Again, similar to the internal

findings described above, the SNAP scales correlated similarly with BFI scales across

testing modes and scoring metrics. Although it is outside the scope of this paper to

comment on each SNAP correlate, it is clear that the correlations were orderly and

interpretable in the context of previous SNAP studies. For example, as expected, the

Neuroticism scale of the BFI correlated significantly with several SNAP scales, including

Negative Temperament, Mistrust, Aggression, and Self-harm. Further, BFI

Agreeableness correlated meaningfully with SNAP Aggression, Manipulativeness, and

Mistrust, as well as others. Third, as expected, BFI Conscientiousness was strongly

related to the scales within the SNAP’s Disinhibition factor.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

comparable across modes of administration and scoring methods. Second, within-mode

coefficients were uniformly excellent, with mean coefficients of .99 and .98 for raw-to-

theta structural convergence within the P&P and computerized modes, respectively. The

cross-mode coefficients, while slightly lower (mean = .94), were still excellent.

Congruence coefficients also were computed between Time 1 and Time 2 factor loadings,

yielding uniformly excellent cross-session congruence (all coefficients were greater than

.97) for all factor matrices. Thus, in summary, the internal covariance structure appeared

to replicate well across sessions, testing modes, and scoring metrics.


Page 174


Vispoel, W. P., Boo, J., & Bleiler, T. (2001). Computerized and paper-and-
pencil versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A Comparison of psychometric
features and respondent preferences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,

Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T., & Bleiler, T. (1997). Computerized adaptive and
fixed-item testing of music listening skill: A comparison of efficiency, precision, and
concurrent validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 43-63.

Vittengl, J. R., Clark, L. A., Owen-Salters, E., & Gatchel, R. J. (1999).
Diagnostic change and personality stability following functional restoration treatment in a
chronic low back pain patient sample. Assessment, 6, 79-92.

Vittengl, J. R., Clark, L. A., Owen-Salters, E., & Gatchel, R. J. (1999).
Diagnostic change and personality stability following functional restoration treatment in
chronic low back pain patients. Assessment, 6, 79-91.

Waller, N. G. (1995). MicroFACT 1.0 [computer program]. St. Paul, MN:
Assessment Systems Corporation.

Waller, N. G. (1999). Searching for structure in the MMPI. In S. E. Embretson
& S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement (185-218). Mahwah, NJ:

Waller, N. G. (2002). MicroFACT 2.0 [computer program]. St. Paul, MN:
Assessment Systems Corporation.

Waller, N. G., & Reise, S. P., (1989). Computerized adaptive personality
assessment: An illustration with the Absorption scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 1051-1058.

Waller, N. G., Tellegen, A., McDonald, R. P., & Lykken, D. T. (1996).
Exploring nonlinear models in personality assessment: Development and preliminary
validation of a negative emotionality scale. Journal of Personality, 64, 545-576.

Wang, T., Hanson, B. A., & Lau, C. A. (1999). Reducing bias in CAT trait
estimation: A comparison of approaches. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 263-

Watson, C. G., Manifold, V., Klett, W. G., Brown, J., Thomas, D., & Anderson,
D. (1990). Comparability of computer- and booklet-administered Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventories among primarily chemically dependent patients.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 276-

Watson, C. G., Thomas, D., & Anderson, P. E. D. (1992). Do computer
administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories underestimate booklet-based
scores? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 744-748.

Page 175


Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (Expanded Form). University of Iowa; available from the authors.

Weiss, D. J. (1985). Adaptive testing by computer. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 53, 774-789.

Weiss, D. J., & Vale, C. D. (1987). Computerized adaptive testing for measuring
abilities and other psychological variables. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized
psychological assessment: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 325-343). New York: Basic

White, D. M., Clements, C. B., & Fowler, R. D. (1985). A comparison of
computer administration with standard administration of the MMPI. Computers in
Human Behavior, 1, 143-162.

Wilson, D., Wood, R., & Gibbons, R. D. (1991). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item
statistics, and item factor analysis. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Wilson, F. R., Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence
of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized tests: demonstration of a promising methodology.
Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 265-275.

Windle, C. (1954). Test-retest effect on personality questionnaires. Educational
& Psychological Measurement, 14, 617-633.

Windle, C. (1955). Further studies of test-retest effect on personality
questionnaires. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 15, 246-253.

Wright, B. D. (1977). Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 219-226.

Wu, K., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Daily Behavior: Empirical Relations with
Personality Traits. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Zickar, M. J. (2001). Conquering the next frontier: Modeling personality data
with item responses theory. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality
Psychology in the Workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Similer Documents