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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17845085)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Racial differences in socially desirable responding in selection contexts: magnitude and consequences.
    Dudley NM; McFarland LA; Goodman SA; Hunt ST; Sydell EJ
    J Pers Assess; 2005 Aug; 85(1):50-64. PubMed ID: 16083384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Positive response distortion by police officer applicants: association of Paulhus Deception Scales With MMPI-2 and Inwald Personality Inventory Validity Scales.
    Detrick P; Chibnall JT
    Assessment; 2008 Mar; 15(1):87-96. PubMed ID: 18258735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures.
    Chernyshenko OS; Stark S; Drasgow F; Roberts BW
    Psychol Assess; 2007 Mar; 19(1):88-106. PubMed ID: 17371125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. On the relation between personality and job performance of airline pilots.
    Hormann HJ; Maschke P
    Int J Aviat Psychol; 1996; 6(2):171-8. PubMed ID: 11762439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Assessment of borderline personality features in population samples: is the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features scale measurement invariant across sex and age?
    De Moor MH; Distel MA; Trull TJ; Boomsma DI
    Psychol Assess; 2009 Mar; 21(1):125-30. PubMed ID: 19290772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Medical practice employee selection: application of recent research findings.
    Solomon RJ
    J Med Pract Manage; 2003; 18(4):219-23. PubMed ID: 12661485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Can mock interviewers' personalities influence their personality ratings of applicants?
    Hilliard T; Macan T
    J Psychol; 2009 Mar; 143(2):161-74. PubMed ID: 19306679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion.
    Ellingson JE; Sackett PR; Connelly BS
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Mar; 92(2):386-95. PubMed ID: 17371086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.