PERBANDINGAN KERENTANAN TERHADAP RESPONS TIPUAN ANTARA PENGUKURAN NORMATIF DAN IPSATIF DALAM KONTEKS SELEKSI KERJA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30595/psychoidea.v9i1.240Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan kerentanan dua jenis pengukuran terhadap respons tipuan. Respons tipuan didefinisikan sebagai upaya sadar individu untuk memanipulasi respons yang diberikan terhadap alat ukur yang diberikan kepadanya. Dua jenis format pengukuran yang dibandingkan adalah format normatif (Likert) dan ipsatif. Penelitian ini menggunakan desain eksperimen yang diikuti 100 partisipan. Bentuk manipulasi yang diberikan adalah instruksi dalam melengkapi alat ukur. Instruksi pertama meminta partisipan memberikan respons jujur pada alat ukur yang diberikan, sedangkan pada instruksi kedua peneliti meminta partisipan melengkapi alat ukur seakan-akan mereka adalah pelamar pekerjaan yang sedang mengikuti proses seleksi kerja. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa baik format normatif dan ipsatif rentang terhadap respons tipuan. Namun demikian, hasil perbandingan perubahan skor pada faktor ekstraversi yang diukur oleh kedua format menunjukkan bahwa pengukuran ekstraversi melalui format Likert lebih rentan terhadap respons tipuan dibanding melalui ipsatif. Kerentanan pengukuran format normatif terhadap respons tipuan adalah 30,4%, sedangkan pada format ipsatif sebesar 19,8%. Kata Kunci : Respons Tipuan, Format Normatif, Format IpsatifReferences
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.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Brown, R. D. & Harvey, R. J. 2003. Detecting personality test faking with appropriateness measurement: Fact or fantasy? . Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Orlando.
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N. & Montgomery, G. E. 2005. Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267-307.
Furnham, A. 1986. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385-400.
Greer, T. & Dunlap, W. P. 1997. Analysis of variance with ipsative measures. Psychological Methods, 2, 200-207.
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T. & Yoshita, Y. 2007. Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341-357.
Holden, R. 2008. Underestimating the effects of faking on the validity of self-report personality scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 311-321.
Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R. & Ashton, M. C. 2000. The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371-388.
Martin, B. A., Bowen, C. C. & Hunt, S. T. 2002. How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247-256.
Meyer, K. D., Foster, J. & Anderson, M. G. 2006. Assessing the predictive validity of the performance improvement characteristics job analysis tool. 21th Annual Conference OF Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, May 2006. Dallas, Texas.
Nederhof, A. J. 1985. A comparison of european and north american response patterns in mail surveys. Journal of Market Research Society, 27, 55-63.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. & Sharma, S. 2003. Scaling procedures: Issues and applications, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Nguyen, N. T., Biderman, M. D. & McDaniel, M. 2005. Effects of response instructions on faking a situational judgment test. International Journal of Selection and Assessmen, 13, 250-260.
Riggio, R. E. 2003. Introduction to industrial/organizational psychology, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
Robertson, I. T. & Makin, P. J. 1986. Management selection in britain: A survey and critique. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45-57.
Robie, C. 2006. Effects of perceived selection ratio on personality test faking. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 1233-1244.
Robie, C., Brown, D. & Beaty, J. 2007. Do people fake on personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 489-509.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R. & Callahan, C. 1989. Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491-529.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors published in this journal agree to the following terms:
- The copyright of each article is retained by the author (s) without restrictions
- The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions
- The author grants the journal the first publication rights with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, allowing others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of published journal versions of the work (for example, posting them to institutional repositories or publishing them in a book), with acknowledgment of their initial publication in this journal
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (For example in the Institutional Repository or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger citations of published work
- Articles and all related material published are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).
License
Psycho Idea is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- 4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).
You are free to :
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially
