Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:40:40.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward Understanding the Psychology of Unfolding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Nathan T. Carter ,
Christopher J. Lake  and
Michael J. Zickar
Nathan T. Carter*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
Christopher J. Lake
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
Michael J. Zickar
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, 330 Psychology Building, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 511 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University.

References

Carter, N. T., & Dalal, D. K. (2010). An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 743–748.Google Scholar
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2010, April). Do vague quantifiers induce unfolding in personality items? Poster presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88–106. Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 465–476.Google Scholar
Lake, C. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Respondent and test delivery characteristics that induce item unfolding. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Lin, B. C., Carter, N. T., Zickar, M. J., Dalal, D. K., Adams, J. E., & Wolford, K. A. (2009, April). Unfolding item response theory: Analysis of employment drug testing attitudes. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25–39. Google Scholar
Weekers, A. M., & Meijer, R. R. (2008). Scaling response processes on personality items using unfolding and dominance models: An illustration with a Dutch dominance and unfolding personality inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 65–77. Google Scholar