A computerized adaptive test for enterprising personality assessment in youth

  1. Ignacio Pedrosa 1
  2. Javier Suárez-Álvarez 1
  3. Eduardo García-Cueto 1
  4. José Muñiz 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo (España)
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 28

Número: 4

Páginas: 471-478

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: la evaluación de rasgos específicos de personalidad, respecto a rasgos generales, ha demostrado un mayor poder predictivo de la personalidad emprendedora. Actualmente, no existe ningún instrumento que evalúe el conjunto de rasgos específicos de la personalidad emprendedora que se consideran relevantes en un formato adaptativo. El objetivo fue desarrollar un Test Adaptativo Informatizado (TAI) que permita evaluar la personalidad emprendedora en jóvenes. Método: se desarrolló un banco inicial de 161 ítems, el cual se aplicó a dos conjuntos de participantes (n1 = 357 estudiantes, Medad = 17,89; DTedad = 3,26; n2 = 2.693 estudiantes; Medad = 16,52, DTedad = 1,38) mediante un muestreo estratificado. Resultados: se seleccionaron 107 ítems que evalúan motivación de logro, toma de riesgos, innovación, autonomía, autoeficacia, tolerancia al estrés, locus de control interno y optimismo, sobre los que se comprobó el supuesto de unidimensionalidad. El TAI desarrollado muestra una elevada precisión para un amplio rango de q, empleando una media de 10 ítems y presentando un error típico de las estimaciones relativamente bajo (0,378). Conclusiones: se cuenta con un instrumento breve, válido y preciso con múltiples implicaciones en el contexto educativo y emprendedor.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Real, E., & Ponsoda, P. (2002). Estimación de habilidad y precisión en tests adaptativos informatizados y tests óptimos: un caso práctico [Estimation of ability and precision on computerized adaptative test and optimal test: A case study]. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 7(1), 1-20.
  • Almeida, P. I. L., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). Who wants to be and entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 102-112.
  • AERA, APA, & NCME (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC.
  • Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory. University of Maryland: College Park: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation
  • Baum, J. R., Frese, M., Baron, R. A., & Katz, J. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship as an area of psychology study: An introduction. In J.R. Baum, M. Frese & R.A. Baron (Eds.), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship (pp. 1-18). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Berry, C. M., & Zhao, P. (2015). Addressing criticisms of existing predictive bias research: Cognitive ability test scores still overpredict African Americans’ job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 162-179.
  • Brandstatter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. In K.A. Bollen (Ed.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Londres: SAGE.
  • Choi, S. W., Graddy, M. W., & Dodd, B. G. (2011). A new stopping rule for computerized adaptive testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1) 37-53.
  • Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Reliability coeffi cients for ordinal response scales. Psicothema, 20, 896-901.
  • Gómez-Benito, J., Hidalgo, M. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). Effectiveness of combining statistical tests and effect sizes when using logistic discriminant function regression to detect differential item functioning for polytomous items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5), 875-897.
  • Han, K. T., Wells, C. S., & Sireci, S. G. (2012). The impact of multidirectional item parameter drift on IRT scaling coefficients and proficiency estimates. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(2), 97-117.
  • Hontangas, P. M., Leenen, I., de la Torre, J., Ponsoda, V., Morillo, D., & Abad, F. J. (2016). Traditional scores versus IRT estimates on forcedchoice tests based on a dominance model. Psicothema, 28, 76-82.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Lane, S. (2014). Validity evidences based on testing consequences. Psicothema, 26, 127-135.
  • Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63.
  • Liang, T., Han, K. T., & Hambleton, R. K. (2008). User’s guide for ResidPlots-2: Computer software for IRT graphical residual analyses, Version 2.0. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Center for Educational Assessment.
  • Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 1-8.
  • Muñiz, J. (1997). Introducción a la teoría de respuesta a los ítems [Introduction to Item Response Theory]. Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Muñiz, J., Fidalgo, A. M., García-Cueto, E., Martínez, R., & Moreno, R. (2005). Análisis de los ítems [Item analysis]. Madrid: La Muralla.
  • Muñiz, J., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., & GarcíaCueto, E. (2014). Enterprising personality profile in youth: Components and assessment. Psicothema, 26, 545-553.
  • Moreno, R., Martínez, R. J., & Muñiz, J. (2015). Guidelines based on validity criteria for the development of multiple choice items. Psicothema, 27, 388-394.
  • Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Lamb, M. E., Potter. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial regions: Do macro-psychological cultural characteristics of regions help solve the “knowledge paradox” of economics? PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129332.
  • OECD/The European Commission (2013). The missing entrepreneurs: Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels: OECD Publishing.
  • Olea, J., Abad, F. J., Ponsoda, V., & Ximénez, M. C. (2004). Un test adaptativo informatizado para evaluar el conocimiento del inglés escrito: diseño y comprobaciones psicométricas [A computerized adaptive test to assess knowledge of written English: Design and psychometric testing]. Psicothema, 16, 519-525.
  • Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & García-Cueto, E. (2013). Content validity evidences: Theoretical advances and estimation methods. Acción Psicológica, 10(2), 3-18.
  • Penfield, R., & Giacobbi, P. (2004). Applying a score confidence interval to Aiken’s item content-relevance index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(4), 213-225.
  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007a). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese & R.J . Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007b). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
  • Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207-230.
  • Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. London: Springer
  • Rudick, M. M., Yam, W. H., & Simms, L. J. (2013). Comparing countdownand IRT-based approaches to computerized adaptive personality testing. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 769-779.
  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Vol. No. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
  • Sireci, S. G., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidences based on test content. Psicothema, 26, 100-107.
  • Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Pedrosa, I. (2016). Enterprising personality assessment: Current status and future directions. Papeles del Psicólogo, 37(1), 62-68.
  • Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2014). Screening enterprising personality in youth: An empirical model. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, 1-9.
  • Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220.
  • Van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2010). Elements of adaptive testing. London: Springer.
  • Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 381-404.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet