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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11474721)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR).
    Holden RR; Starzyk KB; McLeod LD; Edwards MJ
    Assessment; 2000 Jun; 7(2):163-75. PubMed ID: 10868254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: a meta-analytic review.
    Ray JV; Hall J; Rivera-Hudson N; Poythress NG; Lilienfeld SO; Morano M
    Personal Disord; 2013 Jan; 4(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 22452779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria.
    Caldwell-Andrews A; Baer RA; Berry DT
    J Pers Assess; 2000 Jun; 74(3):472-88. PubMed ID: 10900573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Detecting socially desirable responding with the Personality Assessment Inventory: the Positive Impression Management scale and the Defensiveness Index.
    Peebles J; Moore RJ
    J Clin Psychol; 1998 Aug; 54(5):621-8. PubMed ID: 9696112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives.
    Monaro M; Mazza C; Colasanti M; Ferracuti S; Orrù G; di Domenico A; Sartori G; Roma P
    Psychol Res; 2021 Nov; 85(8):3094-3107. PubMed ID: 33452928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performance of the Personality Inventory for Youth validity scales.
    Wrobel TA; Lachar D; Wrobel NH; Morgan ST; Gruber CP
    Assessment; 1999 Dec; 6(4):367-80. PubMed ID: 10539983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Using G-Theory to Enhance Evidence of Reliability and Validity for Common Uses of the Paulhus Deception Scales.
    Vispoel WP; Morris CA; Kilinc M
    Assessment; 2018 Jan; 25(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 27076506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012).
    Holden RR; Lambert CE
    Behav Res Methods; 2015 Dec; 47(4):1436-1442. PubMed ID: 25381021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of the PAI and MMPI-2 as predictors of faking bad in college students.
    Blanchard DD; McGrath RE; Pogge DL; Khadivi A
    J Pers Assess; 2003 Apr; 80(2):197-205. PubMed ID: 12700022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.