Matching components of self-report and peer-nomination personality measures

Two common methods of measuring personality variables are examined with respect to the ways in which they control respondent biases. A form of the mental-test theory model is developed which makes explicit differences in score components that result from different methodological constraints imposed by the two methods. From the model, it is possible to specify the operations necessary to provide equivalent information from the two sets of data. Performance of these operations in an empirical test supports the model by producing generally higher correlations between the variables having score components which are more closely matched.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45720/1/11336_2005_Article_BF02289538.pd

Applied Personality Assessment: A 'Cronbachian' Perspective in Open Peer Commentary and Author's Response

Lievens's proposal that personality psychology would benefit from using applied tools of assessment—situation judgement tests and assessment centre exercises—was appropriate, especially as these tools focus on real-world criteria in high-stakes situations. Their use would help to integrate (specific) situationally influenced intra-individual differences (variability) and (general) inter-individual differences (diversity). Lievens's proposal also raised a broader issue: each assessment tool yields unique information, and together they have potential to provide a truly comprehensive model of personality based on the ‘Cronbachian’ perspective that has, so far, not been realized. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psycholog