185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11055152)
1. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.
McFarland LA; Ryan AM
J Appl Psychol; 2000 Oct; 85(5):812-21. PubMed ID: 11055152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Item placement on a personality measure: effects on faking behavior and test measurement properties.
McFarland LA; Ryan AM; Ellis A
J Pers Assess; 2002 Apr; 78(2):348-69. PubMed ID: 12067198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Deliberate faking on personality and emotional intelligence measures.
Hartman NS; Grubb WL
Psychol Rep; 2011 Feb; 108(1):120-38. PubMed ID: 21526598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Individual differences in faking integrity tests.
Brown RD; Cothern CM
Psychol Rep; 2002 Dec; 91(3 Pt 1):691-702. PubMed ID: 12530710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: a Monte Carlo investigation.
Komar S; Brown DJ; Komar JA; Robie C
J Appl Psychol; 2008 Jan; 93(1):140-54. PubMed ID: 18211141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Applicant reactions and faking in real-life personnel selection.
Honkaniemi L; Tolvanen A; Feldt T
Scand J Psychol; 2011 Aug; 52(4):376-81. PubMed ID: 21752026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Examining faking on personality inventories using unfolding item response theory models.
Scherbaum CA; Sabet J; Kern MJ; Agnello P
J Pers Assess; 2013; 95(2):207-16. PubMed ID: 23030769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Five Factor Biodata Inventory: resistance to faking.
Sisco H; Reilly RR
Psychol Rep; 2007 Aug; 101(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 17958100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Detecting fake-good and fake-bad MMPI-2 profiles.
Graham JR; Watts D; Timbrook RE
J Pers Assess; 1991 Oct; 57(2):264-77. PubMed ID: 1955975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The detection of faking on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI).
Van Gorp WG; Meyer RG
J Clin Psychol; 1986 Sep; 42(5):742-7. PubMed ID: 3760205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect!
Röhner J; Schröder-Abé M; Schütz A
Exp Psychol; 2011; 58(6):464-72. PubMed ID: 21592941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking.
van Hooft EA; Born MP
J Appl Psychol; 2012 Mar; 97(2):301-16. PubMed ID: 21967296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity?
Holden RR; Wood LL; Tomashewski L
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2001 Jul; 81(1):160-9. PubMed ID: 11474721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Psychometric Costs of Applicants' Faking: Examining Measurement Invariance and Retest Correlations Across Response Conditions.
Krammer G; Sommer M; Arendasy ME
J Pers Assess; 2017; 99(5):510-523. PubMed ID: 28300431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.
Speer AB; Wegmeyer LJ; Tenbrink AP; Delacruz AY; Christiansen ND; Salim RM
J Appl Psychol; 2023 Nov; 108(11):1812-1833. PubMed ID: 37326537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation.
Van Iddekinge CH; Raymark PH; Roth PL
J Appl Psychol; 2005 May; 90(3):536-52. PubMed ID: 15910148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Is the implicit association test immune to faking?
Steffens MC
Exp Psychol; 2004; 51(3):165-79. PubMed ID: 15267125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct?
Bensch D; Maaß U; Greiff S; Horstmann KT; Ziegler M
Psychol Assess; 2019 Apr; 31(4):532-544. PubMed ID: 30869958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Use of subtle and obvious scales to detect faking on the MCMI-II.
Wierzbicki M
J Clin Psychol; 1997 Aug; 53(5):421-6. PubMed ID: 9257219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The "g" in Faking: Doublethink the Validity of Personality Self-Report Measures for Applicant Selection.
Geiger M; Olderbak S; Sauter R; Wilhelm O
Front Psychol; 2018; 9():2153. PubMed ID: 30483179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
