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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16737358)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Predicting adverse impact and mean criterion performance in multistage selection.
    De Corte W; Lievens F; Sackett PR
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 May; 91(3):523-37. PubMed ID: 16737352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Multistage selection strategies: simulating the effects on adverse impact and expected performance for various predictor combinations.
    Finch DM; Edwards BD; Wallace JC
    J Appl Psychol; 2009 Mar; 94(2):318-40. PubMed ID: 19271793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Positive manifold limits the relevance of content-matching strategies for validating selection test batteries.
    Murphy KR; Dzieweczynski JL; Zhang Y
    J Appl Psychol; 2009 Jul; 94(4):1018-31. PubMed ID: 19594241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Retesting in selection: a meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability.
    Hausknecht JP; Halpert JA; Di Paolo NT; Moriarty Gerrard MO
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Mar; 92(2):373-85. PubMed ID: 17371085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence.
    Schmidt FL; Zimmerman RD
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):553-61. PubMed ID: 15161412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the European community.
    Salgado JF; Anderson N; Moscoso S; Bertua C; de Fruyt F; Rolland JP
    J Appl Psychol; 2003 Dec; 88(6):1068-81. PubMed ID: 14640817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Measuring faking in the employment interview: development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale.
    Levashina J; Campion MA
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Nov; 92(6):1638-56. PubMed ID: 18020802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance.
    Heggestad ED; Morrison M; Reeve CL; McCloy RA
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Jan; 91(1):9-24. PubMed ID: 16435935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity.
    Arthur W; Bell ST; Villado AJ; Doverspike D
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Jul; 91(4):786-801. PubMed ID: 16834506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Application patterns when applicants know the odds: implications for selection research and practice.
    Kuncel NR; Klieger DM
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Mar; 92(2):586-93. PubMed ID: 17371103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients?
    Latham NK; Mehta V; Nguyen AM; Jette AM; Olarsch S; Papanicolaou D; Chandler J
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2008 Nov; 89(11):2146-55. PubMed ID: 18996244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of elaboration on socially desirable responding and the validity of biodata measures.
    Schmitt N; Oswald FL; Kim BH; Gillespie MA; Ramsay LJ; Yoo TY
    J Appl Psychol; 2003 Dec; 88(6):979-88. PubMed ID: 14640810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: indirect measurement and test faking.
    LeBreton JM; Barksdale CD; Robin J; James LR
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Jan; 92(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17227147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Detection of faking on the MMPI-2: differentiation among faking-bad, denial, and claiming extreme virtue.
    Lim J; Butcher JN
    J Pers Assess; 1996 Aug; 67(1):1-25. PubMed ID: 16367656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students' strategic processing.
    Samuelstuen MS; Bråten I
    Br J Educ Psychol; 2007 Jun; 77(Pt 2):351-78. PubMed ID: 17504552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.