Forced-choice (FC) assessments of noncognitive psychological constructs (e.g., personality, behavioral tendencies) are popular in high-stakes organizational testing scenarios (e.g., informing hiring decisions) due to their enhanced resistance against response distortions (e.g., faking good, impression management). The measurement precisions of FC assessment scores used to inform personnel decisions are of paramount importance in practice. Different types of reliability estimates are reported for FC assessment scores in current publications, while consensus on best practices appears to be lacking. In order to provide understanding and structure around the reporting of FC reliability, this study systematically examined different types of reliability estimation methods for Thurstonian IRT-based FC assessment scores: their theoretical differences were discussed, and their numerical differences were illustrated through a series of simulations and empirical studies. In doing so, this study provides a practical guide for appraising different reliability estimation methods for IRT-based FC assessment scores.

非认知性心理构造（例如，性格，行为倾向）的强迫选择（FC）评估在高风险的组织测试场景（例如，告知聘用决策）中很受欢迎，因为它们增强了对响应失真（例如，假冒，印象深刻）的抵抗力管理）。在实践中，用于评估人员决策的FC评估分数的测量精度至关重要。当前出版物中针对FC评估分数报告了不同类型的可靠性估计，但似乎缺乏关于最佳实践的共识。为了提供有关FC可靠性报告的理解和结构，本研究针对基于Thurstonian IRT的FC评估评分系统地检查了不同类型的可靠性估计方法：讨论了它们的理论差异，并通过一系列模拟和实证研究说明了它们的数值差异。为此，本研究为评估基于IRT的FC评估分数的不同可靠性估计方法提供了实用指南。