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.
8. The detection of faking on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI). Van Gorp WG; Meyer RG J Clin Psychol; 1986 Sep; 42(5):742-7. PubMed ID: 3760205 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Effect of feedback expectancy on NEO-Five Factor Inventory scores. Scandell DJ; Wlazelek B; Reffie S Psychol Rep; 2000 Jun; 86(3 Pt 2):1157-67. PubMed ID: 10932574 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. The influence of item order on intentional response distortion in the assessment of high potentials: assessing pilot applicants. Khorramdel L; Kubinger KD; Uitz A Int J Psychol; 2014 Apr; 49(2):131-9. PubMed ID: 24811884 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect! Röhner J; Schröder-Abé M; Schütz A Exp Psychol; 2011; 58(6):464-72. PubMed ID: 21592941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]