English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23494546      Online Users : 146
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/95252
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95252


    Title: 不同職務應徵者與非應徵者的社會期許性及職務期許性作答差異之研究
    Authors: 賴姿伶
    Lai, Tzu-Ling
    Contributors: 余民寧
    Yu, Min-Ning
    賴姿伶
    Lai, Tzu-Ling
    Keywords: 作假
    社會期許
    職務期許性作答
    DIF
    DBF
    人格結構
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2016-05-09 15:25:29 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 人格測驗一直是企業進行人力資源管理活動時的一個重要工具。大部分的人格測驗都是自陳量表,且沒有標準答案,因此在甄選情境時,應徵者對於人格測驗是否會有意圖地作假,一直是個很重要的研究議題。過去在研究測驗作假的議題上,主要有2種典範:(1)在人格測驗中設有一個量尺(scale)專門測量受試者是否意圖作假,(2)比較作假動機較高者和較低者對人格測驗反應的差異,來檢查是否有作假。
    以往的研究大多從古典測驗理論的觀點來探討社會期許量表的作答,在古典測驗理論架構下,僅能就量表總分來判斷受試者的答題傾向,而本研究認為具有不同動機的受試者的作假企圖會反應在不同的題目上面,而非以一個概括的總分來決斷受試者是否有作假。透過試題反應理論(Item Response Theory, IRT)能分析每一個試題的特徵,再加上輔以DIF(Differential Item Functioning)的分析方法,徹底探討社會期許量表中的每個試題對不同群體的受試者產生不同的效果,另外,也透過同樣的方法分析人格測驗中的每個題目,從題目的層次探討:在不同的作假動機下,受試者的作答是否會展現不同的作答組型;接著,再從量表的層次,探討在不同的作假動機下,受試者在社會期許量表及人格測驗的作答是否會展現不同的因素結構。而由於作假可視為一種有意識地操弄作答,以造成良好的印象,因此,本研究也探討應徵不同職務者,是否會「朝向應徵的工作所期望的方向」來作答(作假),同樣的,透過題目的層次和量表的層次來探究這個問題。
    本研究樣本乃自北部某顧問公司資料庫取得,為實際應徵工作或在職者之作答資料,為達成研究目的,共分析四組樣本,分別是一般應徵者樣本7,000人,非應徵者樣本7,000人,應徵行銷業務職務者3,974人,和應徵研發工程職務者3,974人。所有樣本皆填答「員工甄選人格量表」和「社會期許量表」二個研究工具,然後以SPSS 15.0 for Windows、 LISREL 8.72、以及 poly-SIBTEST等程式軟體進行資料分析。
    研究結果發現:
    (1) 非應徵者、應徵者、以及應徵不同職務者在社會期許量表和人格五個量表的得分,並不全然支持應徵者得分較非應徵者高的假設,不論是量表總分或個別題項得分之差異,雖然大多數是應徵者得分較高,但亦有約25%以上的題目是應徵者和非應徵者之間沒有差異,甚或非應徵者得分高過應徵者。
    (2) 社會期許量表和人格五個量表當中都檢測出DIF題目,且當中有些是應徵者傾向高估,亦有些是非應徵者傾向高估自己的分數,因此形成每一樣本組獨特的作答反應組型。
    (3) 跨群組的因素結構恆等性檢定結果顯示,人格五個量表在不同樣本群組的因素結構皆有所差異,但在社會期許量表的結構只在「非應徵者vs. 應徵者」及「非應徵者 vs. 應徵研發工程職類者」兩個比較組中有差異。
    (4) 綜合應徵者、非應徵者、和應徵不同職務者在平均數差異、DIF分析、及人格因素結構恆等性之分析等指標,本研究判斷,應徵者在人格測驗上的作假,主要是為了形成「良好印象」的作假,此良好印象與社會期許量表所測者較無關,但與應徵職務特性所期望者較有關。

    本研究最主要的突破在於從IRT DIF的方法學從題目層次探討人格測驗的作假議題,並且綜合探討社會期許量表和人格測驗的作假效果,此一突破是植基於本研究所欲探討的人格測驗並無標準答案之特點,因而運用DIF檢測方法來評估是否不同的受試群體(應徵者/非應徵者)在個別題項上,選擇某個選項的機率不同(即使他們的能力相同),而據以判斷不同群體受試者是否具有不同的反應組型;此外,研究結果也初步反映出應徵不同職務者的確有朝向其所應徵的職務所期望的方向作答的傾向。最後,本研究亦針對研究結果,從實務應用的角度以及方法學的角度,提出討論與建議。
    Reference: 王文中(2004)。Rasch測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究,27(4),637-694。
    朱錦鳳(2001)。正反向試題敘述對人格測驗的探討。測驗年刊,48(1), 105-118。
    余民寧(1991)。試題反應理論的介紹(一)--測驗理論的發展趨勢。研習資訊, 8(6),13-18。
    余民寧(1993)。試題反應理論的介紹(13)--試題偏差的診斷。研習資訊,10(6),7-11。
    余民寧、謝進昌(2006)。國中基本學力測驗之DIF的實徵分析:以91年度兩次測驗為例。教育學刊,26,241-276。
    林以正、廖玲燕、黃金蘭、楊中芳(2001)。本土社會讚許傾向的測量與歷程。華人本土心理學追求卓越計畫。
    林世華(1987)。潛在特質理論與其應用於適性測驗之評估研究。教育心理學報,20,131-182。
    房美玉(2002)。儲備幹部人格特質甄選量表之建立與應用—以某高科技公司為例。人力資源管理學報,2(1),1-18。
    吳秉恩(1986)。組織行為學。台北:華泰書局。
    陳彰儀、李明霓、顏志龍(2004)。網路應徵者填寫測驗的作假意圖:測驗類型與情境因素的影響。中華心理學刊,46(4),349-359。
    陳彰儀、胡昌亞(2006)。網路測驗情境中促發類型與測驗目的對作假意圖與人格測驗分數的影響。國科會研究計畫結案報告(94-2413-H-004-015)。
    陳彰儀、胡昌亞(2008)。促發情境類型與施測目的對受測者兩類作假反應之影響。國科會研究計畫結案報告。
    張軒正(2002)。在電腦施測情境中,促發、警告、時間限制對降低社會期許之效果。國立政治大學/心理學研究所/碩士論文。
    廖玲燕(2000)。台灣本土社會讚許量表之編製及其心理歷程分析。國立台灣大學/心理學研究所/碩士論文。
    賴姿伶、余民寧(2009)。員工甄選人格量表的編製及其信效度考驗之初步報告。教育研究與發展期刊(in press)。
    Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological measurement, 60(1), 59-72.
    Anderson, C. D., Warner, J. L., & Spector, C. E. (1984). Inflation bias in self-assessment examination: Implications for valid employee selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 574-580.
    Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika,43, 561-573.
    Bagby, R. M., Buis, T., & Nicholson, R. A. (1995). Relative effectiveness of the standard validity scales in detecting fake-bad and fake-good responding: Replication and extension. Psychological Assessment, 7, 84-92.
    Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big-five personality dimensions job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
    Becker, T. E., & Colquitt, A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form: An analysis along several dimensions of item type. Personnel Psychology, 45, 289-406.
    Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord, & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison- Wesles.
    Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when response is scored in two or more nominal category. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
    Bollen, K.A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structureal equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303-316.
    Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, r. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Burkhart, B. R., Gymther, M. D., & Fromuth, M. E. (1980). The relative predictive validity of subtle versus obvious items on the MMPI depression scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 748-751.
    Butvher, J., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
    Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Chang, H. H., Mazzeo, J., Roussos, L. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 333-353.
    Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein,M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effect on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 847-860.
    Conte, J., & Gintoff, J. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five personality dimensions and sales performance. Human Performance, 18, 427-440.
    Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel- Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pp.35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
    Dorans, N. J., & Potenza, M. T. (1994). Equity assessment for polytomously scored items: A taxonomy of procedures for assessing differential item functioning (Research Rep. RR-94-49). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
    Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 134-235.
    Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19-29.
    Dwight, S. A., & Alliger, G. M. (1997, April). Using response latencies to identify overt integrity test dissimulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
    Edwards, A. L., (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden Press.
    Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007). Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 386-395.
    Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155-166.
    Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
    Frei, R. L., Griffith, R. L., McDaniel, M. A., Snell, A. F., & Douglas, E. F. (1997). Faking non-cognitive measures: Factor invariance using multiple groups LISREL. In G. Alliger (Chair), Faking matters. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
    Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (2001). Human Resource Selection. FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
    Ghorpade, j., Hattrup, K. & Lackrita, J. R. (1999). The use of personality measures in cross-cultural research: A test of three personality scales across two countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 670-679.
    Furnham, A. & Fudge, C. (2008). The five factor model of personality and sales performance. Journal of Individual Differences. 29(1), 11-16.
    Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement test: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(2), 164-187.
    Griffith, R. L. (1997). Faking of non-cognitive selection devices: Red herring is hard to swallow. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OH.
    Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
    Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
    Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables- construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5(1/2), 139-155.
    Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 23, 209-244.
    Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285.
    Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
    Hogan, R. T., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions: Questions and Answers. American Psychological Association 51(5), 469-477.
    Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance relations: A social-analytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112.
    Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A Practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
    Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations ( pp. 31-88 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-879.
    Jiang, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Improved type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(4), 291-322.
    Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Li, H. H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61(4), 647-677.
    Mahar, D., Cologon, J., & Duck, J. (1995). Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 605-609.
    Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
    Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: Extensions of the Mantel- Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690-700.
    Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
    Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-34.
    McDaniel, M. A., & Frei, R. L.(1991). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence.
    Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management ( Vol. 13, pp. 153-200 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L.(1998). Five-Factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 145-165.
    McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
    Marlowe, D. A., & Crowne, D. P. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
    Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Applicant of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological measurement, 16, 159-176.
    Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). The role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
    Pannone, R. D. (1984). Predicting test performance: A content valid approach to screening applicants. Personnel Psychology, 37, 507-514.
    Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609.
    Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement Equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517-529.
    Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligent and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552-566.
    Robie, C., Zickar, M. J., & Schmit, M. J. (2001). Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales. Human Performance, 14, 187-207.
    Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on pre-employment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 634-644.
    Salgado, J. F.(1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30-43.
    Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, No. 17.
    Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of applied psychology, 78, 966-974.
    Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescience response bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101-1114.
    Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates True bias/DIP from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item Bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
    Smith, D. B., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 211-219.
    Somes, G. W. (1986). The generalized Mantel- Haenszel statistic. The American Statistician, 40, 106-108.
    Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of applied psychology, 89(3), 497-508.
    Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 25, 78-90.
    Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.
    Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2001). An empirical investigation demonstrating the multidimensional DIF paradigm: A cognitive explanation for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(2), 147-163.
    Wang, W. C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.
    Wang, W. C., & Yeh, Y. L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498.
    Yang, C. F. (1997). Study on underlying psychological processes of social desirability scores. Unpublished manuscript.
    Zickar, M. J., & Drasow, F. (1996). Detecting Faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 71-87.
    Zickar,M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational research methods, 7(2), 168-190.
    Zickar, M. J. (1997,April). Computer simulation of faking on a personality test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
    Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 551-563.
    Zickar, M. J., Rosse, J., Levin, R., & Hulin, C. (1996, April). Modeling the effects of faking on personality scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
    Zwick, R., Donoghue, J., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    心理學系
    89752502
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0897525021
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[心理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML144View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback