工作描述指数“?”反应类别使用的跨文化差异:项目反应树模型的应用

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT International Journal of Selection and Assessment Pub Date : 2022-12-30 DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12414
Philseok Lee, Sean Joo, Zihao Jia
{"title":"工作描述指数“?”反应类别使用的跨文化差异:项目反应树模型的应用","authors":"Philseok Lee,&nbsp;Sean Joo,&nbsp;Zihao Jia","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Historically, the “<i>?</i>” response category (i.e., the question mark response category) has been criticized because of the ambiguity of its interpretation. Previous empirical studies of the appropriateness of the “<i>?</i>” response category have generally used methods that cannot disentangle the response style from target psychological traits and have also exclusively focused on Western samples. To further develop our understanding of the “<i>?</i>” response category, we examined the differing use of the “<i>?</i>” response category in the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) between U.S. and Korean samples by using the recently proposed item response tree (IRTree) models. Our research showed that the Korean group more strongly prefers the “<i>?</i>” response category, while the U.S. group more strongly prefers the directional response category (i.e., Yes). In addition, the Korean group tended to interpret the “<i>?</i>” response category as mild agreement, while the U.S. group tended to interpret it as mild disagreement. Our study adds to the scientific body of knowledge on the “<i>?</i>” response category in a cross-cultural context. We hope that our findings presented herein provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners who want to better understand the “<i>?</i>” response category and develop various psychological assessments in cross-cultural settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijsa.12414","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-cultural differences in the use of the “?” Response category of the Job Descriptive Index: An application of the item response tree model\",\"authors\":\"Philseok Lee,&nbsp;Sean Joo,&nbsp;Zihao Jia\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijsa.12414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Historically, the “<i>?</i>” response category (i.e., the question mark response category) has been criticized because of the ambiguity of its interpretation. Previous empirical studies of the appropriateness of the “<i>?</i>” response category have generally used methods that cannot disentangle the response style from target psychological traits and have also exclusively focused on Western samples. To further develop our understanding of the “<i>?</i>” response category, we examined the differing use of the “<i>?</i>” response category in the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) between U.S. and Korean samples by using the recently proposed item response tree (IRTree) models. Our research showed that the Korean group more strongly prefers the “<i>?</i>” response category, while the U.S. group more strongly prefers the directional response category (i.e., Yes). In addition, the Korean group tended to interpret the “<i>?</i>” response category as mild agreement, while the U.S. group tended to interpret it as mild disagreement. Our study adds to the scientific body of knowledge on the “<i>?</i>” response category in a cross-cultural context. We hope that our findings presented herein provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners who want to better understand the “<i>?</i>” response category and develop various psychological assessments in cross-cultural settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Selection and Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijsa.12414\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Selection and Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12414\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12414","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

历史上,“?”的回答类别(即问号回答类别)因其解释的模糊性而受到批评。之前关于“?”“反应类别”通常使用的方法无法将反应风格与目标心理特征分开,并且只关注西方样本。为了进一步加深我们对“?的回答类别,我们检查了“?”在工作描述指数(JDI)中,通过使用最近提出的项目反应树(IRTree)模型,美国和韩国样本之间的回答类别。我们的研究表明,韩国人更喜欢“?”的回答类别,而美国人则更倾向于方向性的回答类别(即“是”)。此外,韩国人倾向于将“?”的回答类型为温和的同意,而美国人倾向于将其解释为温和的不同意。我们的研究增加了“?”的反应类别。我们希望我们在此提出的发现能为想要更好地理解“?”,并在跨文化环境中开展各种心理评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cross-cultural differences in the use of the “?” Response category of the Job Descriptive Index: An application of the item response tree model

Historically, the “?” response category (i.e., the question mark response category) has been criticized because of the ambiguity of its interpretation. Previous empirical studies of the appropriateness of the “?” response category have generally used methods that cannot disentangle the response style from target psychological traits and have also exclusively focused on Western samples. To further develop our understanding of the “?” response category, we examined the differing use of the “?” response category in the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) between U.S. and Korean samples by using the recently proposed item response tree (IRTree) models. Our research showed that the Korean group more strongly prefers the “?” response category, while the U.S. group more strongly prefers the directional response category (i.e., Yes). In addition, the Korean group tended to interpret the “?” response category as mild agreement, while the U.S. group tended to interpret it as mild disagreement. Our study adds to the scientific body of knowledge on the “?” response category in a cross-cultural context. We hope that our findings presented herein provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners who want to better understand the “?” response category and develop various psychological assessments in cross-cultural settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
期刊最新文献
Sourcing algorithms: Rethinking fairness in hiring in the era of algorithmic recruitment Issue Information Exploring the role of cognitive load in faking prevention using the dual task paradigm Personality development goals at work: Would a new assessment tool help? Reality or illusion: A qualitative study on interviewer job previews and applicant self‐presentation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1