113:, decrease test validity by discouraging response and/or encouraging non-response. For example, a test's authors may force respondents to choose between "a) Animals chase me in my dreams" and "b) My dreams are nice" in an effort to see whether a given respondent is more inclined toward "faking bad" or toward "faking good." When faced with such a question, a child frequently terrified by nightmares that rarely if ever involve animals, and especially one whose parents have taught him/her strict rules against lying, may simply refuse to answer the question given that for that respondent nearly all of the time both descriptions are inaccurate. Even a previously presented guideline "Choose the answer that describes you" may be unhelpful in such a situation to responders who worry that endorsing one item or the other will still involve stating it to be accurate or "well"-descriptive to some positive degree. Only if the guideline is presented as "Choose the answer that more accurately or less inaccurately describes you" and the above-described responder is sophisticated enough to reason out his/her response in terms of "Despite the infrequency with which I have nice dreams, I have them than dreams in which animals chase me" (or, in theory, vice versa) will such a responder be willing to answer the question—and phrasing the guideline in this way bears its own cost of making the question reveal less about the respondent's propensities because the respondent is no longer forced to "fake" one way or another.
148:. Ipsative assessment is used in everyday life, and features heavily in physical education and also in computer games. Encouraging pupils to beat their previous scores can take peer pressure out of situations and eliminates the competitive element associated with norm-based referencing. It can be particularly useful for children with learning disabilities and can improve motivation.
101:
If the same traits were evaluated on an ipsative measure, respondents would be forced to choose between the two, i.e. a respondent would see the item "Which of these do you agree with more strongly? a) I like parties. b) I keep my work space neat and tidy." Ipsative measures may be more useful for
121:
In education, ipsative assessment is the practice of assessing present performance against the prior performance of the person being assessed. One place where this might be implemented is in reference to tests used with
97:
and was assessed on a Likert-type scale, each trait would be evaluated singularly, i.e. respondents would see the item "I enjoy parties" and agree or disagree with it to whatever degree reflected their preferences.
105:
Additionally, ipsative measures may be useful in identifying faking. However, ipsative measures may, especially among testing-naïve individuals exhibiting high levels of
207:
222:
89:
While mean scores from Likert-type scales can be compared across individuals, scores from an ipsative measure cannot. To explain, if an individual was equally
290:, Johnson, C and Wood, R. (1988). "Spuriouser and spuriouser:The use of ipsative personality tests." Journal of Occupational Psychology,61,153-162.
102:
evaluating traits within an individual, whereas Likert-type scales are more useful for evaluating traits across individuals.
69:, 'of the self') are those where the sum of scale scores from each respondent adds to a constant value. Sometimes called a
242:
303:
308:
162:
141:
187:
263:
167:
145:
172:
77:
in which respondents score—often from 1 to 5—how much they agree with a given statement (see also
134:
78:
8:
238:
182:
157:
106:
234:
27:
287:
297:
177:
130:
94:
74:
110:
90:
17:
64:
126:
60:
123:
42:
48:
33:
227:
39:
51:
45:
36:
223:"Strengths and Limitations of Ipsative Measurement"
208:"Normative vs. Ipsative Measurement - IResearchNet"
30:
295:
137:of teacher performance is currently popular.
140:Ipsative assessment can be contrasted with
296:
220:
13:
281:
239:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00599.x
14:
320:
84:
26:
163:Criterion-referenced assessment
142:criterion-referenced assessment
116:
256:
214:
200:
1:
193:
188:Two-alternative forced choice
7:
151:
10:
325:
264:"Reducing faking in tests"
168:Norm-referenced assessment
146:norm-referenced assessment
73:, this measure contrasts
173:Psychological assessment
304:Experimental psychology
309:Educational psychology
221:Baron, Helen (1996).
135:value-added modeling
79:norm-referenced test
71:forced-choice scale
210:. 25 January 2016.
75:Likert-type scales
183:Standardized test
158:Concept inventory
107:conscientiousness
316:
275:
274:
272:
271:
266:. Changing Minds
260:
254:
253:
251:
250:
241:. Archived from
218:
212:
211:
204:
58:
57:
54:
53:
50:
47:
44:
41:
38:
35:
32:
24:questionnaires (
324:
323:
319:
318:
317:
315:
314:
313:
294:
293:
284:
282:Further reading
279:
278:
269:
267:
262:
261:
257:
248:
246:
219:
215:
206:
205:
201:
196:
154:
119:
87:
29:
25:
12:
11:
5:
322:
312:
311:
306:
292:
291:
283:
280:
277:
276:
255:
213:
198:
197:
195:
192:
191:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
153:
150:
118:
115:
86:
83:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
321:
310:
307:
305:
302:
301:
299:
289:
286:
285:
265:
259:
245:on 2006-09-27
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
217:
209:
203:
199:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
178:Psychometrics
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
155:
149:
147:
143:
138:
136:
132:
131:United States
128:
125:
114:
112:
108:
103:
99:
96:
95:conscientious
92:
85:In psychology
82:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
62:
56:
23:
19:
288:Blinkhorn, S
268:. Retrieved
258:
247:. Retrieved
243:the original
230:
226:
216:
202:
139:
120:
117:In education
104:
100:
88:
70:
65:
21:
15:
111:neuroticism
91:extroverted
298:Categories
270:2007-11-30
249:2007-11-30
194:References
18:psychology
233:: 49–56.
152:See also
133:, where
127:students
22:ipsative
129:in the
109:and/or
59:; from
61:Latin
144:and
124:K-12
93:and
66:ipse
235:doi
81:).
16:In
300::
231:69
229:.
225:.
63::
20:,
273:.
252:.
237::
55:/
52:v
49:ɪ
46:t
43:ə
40:s
37:p
34:ɪ
31:ˈ
28:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.