2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

552
low and middle categories to form a high category composite. Likewise, we could sum the
number of times respondents chose values in the low category over values in the high and middle
categories to form a low category composite. Such composites would indicate the degree to
which applicants prefer values that the Army does and does not supply, respectively. A high
score on the high category composite would indicate high needs-supplies fit, whereas a high
score on the low category composite would indicate poor needs-supplies fit. That is, applicants
with high scores on the low category composite would tend to value things the Army does not
generally offer first-tour Soldiers.
Despite the potential advantages of a forced-choice instrument, such measures can also
present challenges when used for selection. For example, forced-choice measures result in ipsative
or partially ipsative data, which can make it difficult to obtain the normative information that is
critical for making between person comparisons (Hicks, 1970). However, the ipsativity of a forcedchoice
measure can be reduced by the way it is constructed and scored. For example, assessing
most or all of the constructs within the domain of interest (e.g., all work-related values of
American youth) can increase the degree to which the measure provides normative information.
This is because in a forced-choice instrument, an applicant’s score on a given construct (e.g. the
value of autonomy) depends on the constructs with which it is compared. For instance, autonomy
at work could be most important to an individual when compared to values A and B, but not when
compared to values C and D. Thus, comparing a construct to every other construct within the
domain of interest (rather than comparing it to limited number of constructs) can result in more
accurate approximations of normative trait standings. We attempt to do this in the WVI by
assessing a large number of work values that we think prospective Army recruits could possess.
Another way to reduce the ipsativity of a forced-choice measure is to not score all of the
constructs assessed in the instrument. This approach can minimize ipsativity because it allows
applicants to score high (or low) on all constructs of interest when they are paired only with nonrelevant
constructs. In the WVI, values that the Army supports (high category values) are
compared only to values it does not support (low and middle category values), and not other
values supported by the Army. Although this will reduce ipsativity, some will remain because
scores on the supported values depend, in part, on the restricted set of (unsupported) values with
which they are compared.
ASSESSING EXPECTATIONS-REALITY FIT
We also developed measures of expectations-reality fit. These measures are designed to
assess individuals’ knowledge about the work values and interests that the Army actually
supports. We developed these instruments because we believe that needs-supplies fit and
expectations-reality fit may interact to predict attrition and its attitudinal precursors (e.g., job
satisfaction). Based on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), we believe that misfit between the
applicant and Army for a given work value or interest depends on (a) how important the
value/interest is to the applicant, (b) how much the applicant expects the Army to provide
opportunities to satisfy the value/interest, and (c) the extent to which the Army actually offers the
value/interest. For example, consider two applicants – one who values autonomy and expects the
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003