In a comparative evaluation of a standard true-false format for personality assessment and a forced-choice format, subjects from college residential units were assigned randomly to respond either to the forced-choice or standard true-false form of the Personality Research Form (PRF). All subjects also rated themselves and the members of their residential units on behavior traits corresponding to the PRF scales. Reliabilities of the scales comprising the true-false form were substantially higher than those in the forced-choice form. Peer rating validities for the true-false and forced-choice forms were in a comparable range, but correlations with self-ratings were higher for the true-false form. Results do not support the contention that for personality scales a forced-choice format is consistently more valid than a standard format. Considering the other advantages of the true-false format, including its freedom from the complicating effects of ipsative scores, the use of this format is recommended for the great majority of applications in personality assessment. (Author)