The California Psychological Inventory’s Dominance scale was investigated for inconsistencies in item—trait associations across four samples (one American normative and three culturally dissociated manager groupings). The Kim, Cohen, and Park procedure was used, enabling simultaneous multigroup comparison in addition to the traditional differential item functioning focus on paired-group contrasts. Framing comparisons within Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Dominance construct—item association inconsistencies were predicted to occur across Indian manager responses (when contrasted relatively with U.S. and U.K. responses). Results are consistent with the Hofstede predictions and have particular implications for empirically keyed assessments, multigroup contrasts, the cross-cultural expression of individual differences, and the generalizability of trait definitions across cultures.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491-503.
2.
Anderson, M., & Tett, R. ( 2009, April). Specificity and multivariate prediction in personality-job performance linkages. In J. Coaster (Chair), Trait, criterion, and situational specificity in personality-job performance relations. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
3.
Blake, R.J., Potter, E.H., & Slimak, R.E. ( 1993). Validation of the structural scales of the CPI for predicting the performance of junior officers in the U.S. Coast Guard. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 431-448.
4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). 2006 Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey . Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
5.
Buss, D.M. ( 1981). Sex differences in the evaluation and performance of dominant acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 40, 147-154.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. ( 2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders . Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
8.
Ellis, B.B. ( 1995). A partial test of Hulin’s psychometric theory of measurement equivalence in translated tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 184-193.
9.
Ellis, B.B., & Mead, A.D. ( 2000). Assessment of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the 16PF questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 787-807.
10.
Gough, H.G. ( 1968). An interpreter’s syllabus for the California Psychological Inventory. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 55-79). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
11.
Gough, H.G. ( 1990). Testing for leadership with the California Psychological Inventory. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 355-379). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
12.
Gough, H.G. ( 1998, April). Managerial performance and level as related to the CPI. Paper presented at the First European California Psychological Inventory Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.
Hegstrom, J.L., & Griffith, W.I. (1992). Dominance, sex, and leader emergence. Sex Roles, 27, 209-220.
15.
Helgeson, V.S., & Fritz, H.L. ( 1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality , 33, 131-158.
16.
Hofstede, G. ( 2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
17.
Hofstede, G. ( 2008). Geert HofstedeTM cultural dimensions.Retrieved from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php
18.
Hogan, J.C. ( 1978). Personological dynamics of leadership. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 390-395.
19.
Huang, C.D., Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218.
20.
Jane, J.S., Oltmanns, T.F., South, S.C., & Turkheimer, E. (2007). Gender bias in diagnostic criteria for personality disorders: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 166-175.
21.
Kim, S.H., Cohen, A.S., & Park, T.H. ( 1995). Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 261-276.
22.
King, J.E., Weiss, A., & Sisco, M.M. ( 2008). Aping humans: Age and sex effects in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and human (Homo sapiens) personality. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122, 418-427.
23.
Kulas, J.T., Lo, M.C., & Komai, M. ( 2008). KCPDIF: Multigroup DIF Estimation using the Kim, Cohen, & Park (1995) Q Framework [Computer program]. Saint Cloud, MN: Saint Cloud State University.
24.
Lord, F.M. ( 1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
McAllister, L.W. ( 1996). A practical guide to CPI® interpretation (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP.
26.
Patwardhan, V. ( 2004). Exploration into personality of Indian women leaders . Gender & Behaviour, 2, 179-199.
27.
Raju, N.S., & Ellis, B.B. ( 2002). Differential item and test functioning. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations (pp. 156-188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, A.M., Horvath, M., Ployhart, R.E., Schmitt, N., & Slade, L.A. ( 2000). Hypothesizing differential item functioning in global employee opinion surveys. Personnel Psychology, 53, 531-562.
30.
Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. ( 2008). Psychopathic personality traits associated with abnormal selective attention and impaired cognitive control. Neuropsychology , 22, 669-680.
31.
Sheppard, R., Han, K., Colarelli, S.M., Dai, G., & King, D.W. ( 2006). Differential item functioning by sex and race in the Hogan Personality Inventory. Assessment, 13, 442-453.
32.
Stark, S. ( 2001). MODFIT [Computer program]. Urbana-Champaign : University of Illinois.
33.
Stark, S. ( 2002). Iterlink [Computer program]. Urbana-Champaign : University of Illinois.
34.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Drasgow, F. ( 2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497-508.
35.
Suarez-Orozco, M.M. ( 2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda. Harvard Education Review, 71, 345-365.
36.
te Nijenhuis, J., van der Flier, H., & van Leeuwen, L. (2003). The use of a test for neuroticism, extraversion, and rigidity for Dutch immigrant job-applicants. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 630-647.
37.
Thissen, D., Chen, W.H., & Bock, D. ( 2003). MULTILOG 7 [Computer program]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
38.
Trapnell, P.D., & Wiggins, J.S. ( 1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781-790.
39.
Uebersax, J.S. ( 2006). TetMat user guide (v. 1.0). Computer program documentation.
40.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D.S., & Hough, L.M. ( 2000, August). Personality constructs predictive of leadership performance of managers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
41.
Waller, N.G., Thompson, J.S., & Wenk, E. ( 2000). Using IRT to separate measurement bias from true group differences on homogeneous and heterogeneous scales: An illustration with the MMPI. Psychological Methods, 5, 125-146.
42.
Yiwei, C. ( 2003). A cross-cultural comparative study of personality: Using differential item functioning of IRT. Acta Psychologica Sinica , 35, 120-126.
43.
Young, E.L., & Sudweeks, R.R. (2005). Gender differential item functioning in the multidimensional self concept scale with a sample of early adolescent students. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 38, 29-44.
