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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11596810)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. The influence of job familiarity and impression management on self-report measure scale scores and response latencies.
    Vasilopoulos NL; Reilly RR; Leaman JA
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Feb; 85(1):50-64. PubMed ID: 10740956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection.
    Hogan J; Barrett P; Hogan R
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Sep; 92(5):1270-85. PubMed ID: 17845085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Moral reasoning and its correlates in job applicants.
    Proroković A; Nikolić M; Šimić N
    Arh Hig Rada Toksikol; 2017 Mar; 68(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 28365672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Overt honesty measures predicting admissions: an index of validity or reliability.
    Nicol AA; Paunonen SV
    Psychol Rep; 2002 Feb; 90(1):105-15. PubMed ID: 11899917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Faking good: self-enhancement in medical school applicants.
    Griffin B; Wilson IG
    Med Educ; 2012 May; 46(5):485-90. PubMed ID: 22515756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Objective detection of faking on role-play tests of assertion: gender differences.
    Kern JM
    Psychol Rep; 1996 Apr; 78(2):355-61. PubMed ID: 9148285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Faking to fit in: Applicants' response strategies to match organizational culture.
    Roulin N; Krings F
    J Appl Psychol; 2020 Feb; 105(2):130-145. PubMed ID: 31233316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Personnel selection and the five-factor model: reexamining the effects of appplicant's frame of reference.
    Smith DB; Hanges PJ; Dickson MW
    J Appl Psychol; 2001 Apr; 86(2):304-15. PubMed ID: 11393442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Can Faking Be Measured With Dedicated Validity Scales? Within-Subject Trifactor Mixture Modeling Applied to BIDR Responses.
    Guenole N; Brown A; Lim V
    Assessment; 2023 Jul; 30(5):1523-1542. PubMed ID: 35786013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Intermittent faking of personality profiles in high-stakes assessments: A grade of membership analysis.
    Brown A; Böckenholt U
    Psychol Methods; 2022 Oct; 27(5):895-916. PubMed ID: 35007104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Rey 15-item memorization and Dot counting scores in a "stress" claim worker's compensation population: relationship to personality (MCMI) scores.
    Boone KB; Savodnik I; Ghaffarian S; Lee A; Freeman D; Berman NG
    J Clin Psychol; 1995 May; 51(3):457-63. PubMed ID: 7560151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Faking bad and faking good by college students on the Korean MMPI-2.
    Hahn J
    J Pers Assess; 2005 Aug; 85(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 16083385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.