Test-taker reactions to ideal point measures of personality

Ideal point measures of personality, which include moderately worded items, have gained attention from researchers and assessment practitioners due to their potential for more accurately assessing personality relative to traditional dominance measures, which contain only positive and negative items. However, no research of which we are aware has investigated applicant reactions to this new measure type. Given the well-known influence of reactions on applicant and organizational outcomes, knowledge of reactions to ideal point measures will be critical to decisions regarding their use in organizations. The present study compares test-taker reactions to ideal point and dominance personality measures when taken as part of a research study and in a simulated selection context. We hypothesize that test-takers completing the ideal point measure will perceive lower accuracy and higher difficulty relative to a dominance measure, particularly in a simulated applicant condition. We then propose a conditional indirect effect of measure type on overall affective reactions via perceived difficulty and accuracy such that the indirect effect is stronger in the simulated applicant condition. The current study uses a mixed-methods approach. First, in an experimental, factorial design, we manipulate the factors of (a) measure type (dominance vs. ideal point); and (b) instruction set (honest vs. simulated applicant). Results support the hypotheses. Then, we investigate how test-takers’ qualitative explanations of reactions clarify findings. Results reveal that lower perceived accuracy and greater perceived difficulty may be driven by test-takers’ perceptions that responses to ideal point items have ambiguous interpretations. Implications for assessment and personnel selection are discussed.