{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03252710592160134, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003336113427856547, 'mean_word_length': 4.769230769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two Caveats for the Use of Ideal Point Items: Discrepancies and Bivariate Constructs

Ideal point items in general and the specific item response theory-based models outlined by Drasgow, Chernyshenko, and Stark (2010) hold considerable promise for the measurement of intermediate levels of constructs such as beliefs, traits, and attitudes. The aim of this commentary is to outline two caveats relating to the use of a certain type of ideal point item: one related to the assessment of discrepancies (e.g., person–environment fit) using ideal point items and one related specifically to possible computer adaptive testing applications. Ideal point items for attitude or trait measures as outlined by Drasgow et al. appear to take one of the two forms. The first (assuming Likert items) is a statement of the general form ‘‘I have moderate levels of construct X,’’ whereas the second takes the general form of ‘‘I have equal amounts of A and B’’ or ‘‘I am characterized by a balance between A and B,’’ where A and B represent the two endpoints of a bipolar scale. This commentary focuses on this second possible form for an ideal point item, hereafter referred to as a double-barrel ideal point item.