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 *

217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17958100)

  • 21. Use of subtle and obvious scales to detect faking on the MCMI-II.
    Wierzbicki M
    J Clin Psychol; 1997 Aug; 53(5):421-6. PubMed ID: 9257219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Introducing Machine Learning to Detect Personality Faking-Good in a Male Sample: A New Model Based on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Scales and Reaction Times.
    Mazza C; Monaro M; Orrù G; Burla F; Colasanti M; Ferracuti S; Roma P
    Front Psychiatry; 2019; 10():389. PubMed ID: 31275176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Self-perception of personality at midlife in elderly people: continuity and change.
    Gold D; Andres D; Schwartzman A
    Exp Aging Res; 1987; 13(4):197-202. PubMed ID: 3505874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Controlling social desirability may attenuate faking effects: a study with aggression measures.
    Anguiano-Carrasco C; Vigil-Colet A; Ferrando PJ
    Psicothema; 2013; 25(2):164-70. PubMed ID: 23628529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Positive impression management and its influence on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: a comparison of analog and differential prevalence group designs.
    Bagby RM; Marshall MB
    Psychol Assess; 2003 Sep; 15(3):333-9. PubMed ID: 14593833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Comparative validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires.
    Thalmayer AG; Saucier G; Eigenhuis A
    Psychol Assess; 2011 Dec; 23(4):995-1009. PubMed ID: 21859221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior.
    Paunonen SV
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2003 Feb; 84(2):411-24. PubMed ID: 12585813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management.
    Farrow TF; Burgess J; Wilkinson ID; Hunter MD
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jan; 67():159-74. PubMed ID: 25527112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Correction for faking in self-report personality tests.
    Sjöberg L
    Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):582-91. PubMed ID: 26043667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Analysis of a brief biodata scale as a predictor of job performance and its incremental validity over the Big Five and Dark Tetrad personality traits.
    Ramos-Villagrasa PJ; Fernández-Del-Río E; Castro Á
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(9):e0274878. PubMed ID: 36178891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Faking and faking detection on the 16 PF-form A.
    Braun JR; LaFaro D
    J Psychol; 1969 Mar; 71(2):155-8. PubMed ID: 5780224
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding.
    Stöber J; Dette DE; Musch J
    J Pers Assess; 2002 Apr; 78(2):370-89. PubMed ID: 12067199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Socially desirable responding in Chinese university students: denial and enhancement?
    Li F; Li Y; Wang Y
    Psychol Rep; 2015 Apr; 116(2):409-21. PubMed ID: 25730746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.