Typically, data are collected concerning N targets who are rated, in addition to themselves, by one or several judges on exactly the same set of K personality traits. One problem in personality research is that there are two principal ways of computing agreement between the judgments of multiple informants. Thus, agreement is necessary for the accuracy of judgments of personality traits. At least one of them is wrong and it is likely that they both are mistaken (Funder, 1999). For instance, if two judges disagree about the judged trait, they cannot both be right. In any case, agreement between judges is a precondition for a property to really exist. It has even been claimed that other-ratings are a more valid source of information than self-ratings when it comes to the relationship between personality traits and some external validity criteria (Kolar et al., 1996 Connelly and Ones, 2010). Since between-rater agreement on personality trait ratings allows us to separate some of the different components of ratings, the use of multiple informants has become one of the most valuable tools in personality research (McCrae, 1994 Funder, 1999 Kenny et al., 2006 Vazire, 2006 Borkenau and Zaltauskas, 2009 Kandler et al., 2010 De Los Reyes et al., 2013). Personality judgments may reflect not only the traits by which a specific target individual can be distinguished from other targets but also stereotypes, biases, and method-specific variance (Cronbach and Gleser, 1953 Cronbach, 1955). The views that trait-by-trait analysis does not provide information regarding accuracy level of a particular pair of judges and profile analysis does not permit assessment of the relative contributions of traits to overall accuracy are not supported. If normativeness is separated from distinctiveness of personality scores and individual profiles are ipsatized, then mean profile agreement r P becomes identical to mean trait agreement r T. Similarly, it is possible to decompose agreement between two personality profiles into the individual contributions of traits from which these profiles are assembled. We demonstrate that trait agreement can be partialled into individual contributions so that it is possible to show how much each individual pair of judges contributes to agreement on a particular trait.
Personality traits of 4115 targets from Czech, Belgian, Estonian, and German samples were rated by themselves and knowledgeable informants. This idea is largely based on two separate ways of computing self-other agreement: trait agreement ( r T) and profile agreement ( r P), which are typically associated with two different trait-centered and person-centered approaches in personality research. It is argued that if we compute self-other agreement on some personality traits then we possess no or very little information about the individuals who are the targets of this judgment.
0 kommentar(er)
