Rating scales are widely used in psychological assessment, but their responses can be affected by biases such as socially desirable responding or response styles. The multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) response format offers an alternative. In the MFC response format, respondents provide comparative preferences among items rather than judging them independently. This allows the construction of questionnaires that are difficult to intentionally distort, i.e., to fake. Further, the absence of a rating scale prevents response styles, such as preferences for certain response categories, by definition. These advantages have sparked an increased interest in measuring personality using MFC.
In this talk, I will provide an accessible introduction to MFC measurement, covering common variations of the MFC response format and modeling approaches for comparative data. I will conclude the introduction with a list of advantages and disadvantages of the response format to help researchers decide when to consider MFC as an alternative to rating scales.
I will then present two current research projects. The first examines how different methods for assessing social desirability affect the construction, faking resistance, and validity of MFC questionnaires. Our findings suggest that assessing desirability using comparative formats may improve validity, but not necessarily faking resistance. The second project compares MFC and rating-scale personality measurement across four countries, focusing on measurement invariance and the generalizability of validity. Results indicate broadly similar cross-country robustness, although validity was lower on average when using the MFC response format.
Overall, the MFC format is a viable alternative to rating scales, though issues related to faking resistance and cross-country comparisons require further research.