I don’t the claims to measurement in our discipline are on shaky ground to put in politely. As such, I often think that we should be focussed more on the evaluation of usefulness rather than infinitesimally small gains in measurement accuracy.
The psychometric weaknesses of ipsative testing are well reviewed and for those interested I strongly suggest a thorough read of Meade (2004). In essence the critiques are at both a factor structure level as well as the corollary of reliability of measurement.
There are two reasons that people recommend ipsative measures for selection. The first is a mis-belief that they are less resistant to faking and therefore produce more valid results. The second is that marketing is fundamentally about having a point of difference
In this three-part blog, I will briefly discuss the basis for ipsative measurement, the issues with ipsative testing and the arguments brought forth in support.
There appears to be a resurgence of ipsative testing under the veil of CAT (Computer Adaptive Testing) for personality. Clearly there is a lot more quality research that must go on to develop a CAT for personality than the simple ipsative tests the market has seen before.