Examining gender differences in the use of multidimensional forced-choice measures of personality in terms of test-taker reactions and test fairness

Abstract

Human resource (HR) practices have been focused on using assessments that are robust to faking and response biases associated with Likert-type scales. As an alternative, multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) measures have recently shown advances in reducing faking and response biases while retaining similar levels of validity to Likert-type measures. Although research evidence supports the effectiveness of MFC measures, fairness issues resulting from gender biases in the use of MFC measures have not yet been investigated in the literature. Given the importance of gender equity in HR development, it is vital that new assessments improve upon known gender biases in the historical use of Likert-type measures and do not lead to gender discrimination in HR practices. In this vein, our investigation focuses specifically on potential gender biases in the use of MFC measures for HR development. Specifically, our study examines differential test-taker reactions and differential prediction of self-assessed leadership ability between genders when using the MFC personality measure. In an experimental study with college students, we found no evidence of gender differences in test-taker reactions to MFC measures. In a second cross-sectional study with full-time employees, we found evidence of intercept differences, such that females were frequently underpredicted when using MFC personality measures to predict self-assessed leadership ability. Moreover, the pattern of differential prediction using MFC measures was similar to that of Likert-type measures. Implications for MFC personality measures in applied practice are discussed.