Matching components of self-report and peer-nomination personality measures

Abstract

Two common methods of measuring personality variables are examined with respect to the ways in which they control respondent biases. A form of the mental-test theory model is developed which makes explicit differences in score components that result from different methodological constraints imposed by the two methods. From the model, it is possible to specify the operations necessary to provide equivalent information from the two sets of data. Performance of these operations in an empirical test supports the model by producing generally higher correlations between the variables having score components which are more closely matched.