These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11055152)

  • 21. The effect of implicitly incentivized faking on explicit and implicit measures of doping attitude: when athletes want to pretend an even more negative attitude to doping.
    Wolff W; Schindler S; Brand R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0118507. PubMed ID: 25902142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings.
    Schmitt N; Oswald FL
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 May; 91(3):613-21. PubMed ID: 16737358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.
    Wetzel E; Frick S; Brown A
    Psychol Assess; 2021 Feb; 33(2):156-170. PubMed ID: 33151727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Cyberfaking: I can, so I will? Intentions to fake in online psychological testing.
    Grieve R; Elliott J
    Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw; 2013 May; 16(5):364-9. PubMed ID: 23574347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Retesting personality in employee selection: implications of the context, sample, and setting.
    Holladay CL; David E; Johnson SK
    Psychol Rep; 2013 Apr; 112(2):486-501. PubMed ID: 23833877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection.
    Landers RN; Sackett PR; Tuzinski KA
    J Appl Psychol; 2011 Jan; 96(1):202-10. PubMed ID: 20718510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT).
    Röhner J; Ewers T
    Behav Res Methods; 2016 Mar; 48(1):243-58. PubMed ID: 25701107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Deceptiveness on the PAI: a study of naïve faking with psychiatric inpatients.
    Baity MR; Siefert CJ; Chambers A; Blais MA
    J Pers Assess; 2007 Feb; 88(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 17266410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Use of MCMI subtle and obvious subscales to detect faking.
    Wierzbicki M
    J Clin Psychol; 1993 Nov; 49(6):809-14. PubMed ID: 8300869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of the testing situation on item responding: cause for concern.
    Stark S; Chernyshenko OS; Chan KY; Lee WC; Drasgow F
    J Appl Psychol; 2001 Oct; 86(5):943-53. PubMed ID: 11596810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The detection of fake-bad and fake-good responding on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III.
    Daubert SD; Metzler AE
    Psychol Assess; 2000 Dec; 12(4):418-24. PubMed ID: 11147110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Instructed faking and MMPI-2 response latencies: the potential for assessing response validity.
    Brunetti DG; Schlottmann RS; Scott AB; Mihura JL
    J Clin Psychol; 1998 Feb; 54(2):143-53. PubMed ID: 9467758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations.
    Cao M; Drasgow F
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Nov; 104(11):1347-1368. PubMed ID: 31070382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management.
    Farrow TF; Burgess J; Wilkinson ID; Hunter MD
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jan; 67():159-74. PubMed ID: 25527112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Faking the MMPI-2: utility of the Subtle-Obvious scales.
    Brems C; Harris K
    J Clin Psychol; 1996 Sep; 52(5):525-33. PubMed ID: 8877687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of symptom information and intelligence in dissimulation: an examination of faking response styles by inmates on the Basic Personality Inventory.
    Steffan JS; Kroner DG; Morgan RD
    Assessment; 2007 Mar; 14(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 17314177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Detection of faking on role-play tests of assertiveness.
    Kern JM
    Psychol Rep; 1994 Apr; 74(2):367-70. PubMed ID: 8197276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Correction for faking in self-report personality tests.
    Sjöberg L
    Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):582-91. PubMed ID: 26043667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The predictive validity of subtle and obvious empirically derived psychological test items under faking conditions.
    Worthington DL; Schlottmann RS
    J Pers Assess; 1986; 50(2):171-81. PubMed ID: 3761120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Antisocial features and "faking bad": A critical note.
    Niesten IJ; Nentjes L; Merckelbach H; Bernstein DP
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 41():34-42. PubMed ID: 25843907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.