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 *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21752026)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Retesting personality in employee selection: implications of the context, sample, and setting.
    Holladay CL; David E; Johnson SK
    Psychol Rep; 2013 Apr; 112(2):486-501. PubMed ID: 23833877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs.
    Barrick MR; Mount MK
    J Appl Psychol; 1996 Jun; 81(3):261-72. PubMed ID: 8690688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Deliberate faking on personality and emotional intelligence measures.
    Hartman NS; Grubb WL
    Psychol Rep; 2011 Feb; 108(1):120-38. PubMed ID: 21526598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Demand effects on positive response distortion by police officer applicants on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
    Detrick P; Chibnall JT; Call C
    J Pers Assess; 2010 Sep; 92(5):410-5. PubMed ID: 20706927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Applicant Faking of Personality Inventories in College Admission: Applicants' Shift From Honest Responses Is Unsystematic and Related to the Perceived Relevance for the Profession.
    Krammer G
    J Pers Assess; 2020; 102(6):758-769. PubMed ID: 31403324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking.
    van Hooft EA; Born MP
    J Appl Psychol; 2012 Mar; 97(2):301-16. PubMed ID: 21967296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Examining faking on personality inventories using unfolding item response theory models.
    Scherbaum CA; Sabet J; Kern MJ; Agnello P
    J Pers Assess; 2013; 95(2):207-16. PubMed ID: 23030769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The detection of fake-bad and fake-good responding on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III.
    Daubert SD; Metzler AE
    Psychol Assess; 2000 Dec; 12(4):418-24. PubMed ID: 11147110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of the testing situation on item responding: cause for concern.
    Stark S; Chernyshenko OS; Chan KY; Lee WC; Drasgow F
    J Appl Psychol; 2001 Oct; 86(5):943-53. PubMed ID: 11596810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. APPLICANTS' STRATEGIC USE OF EXTREME OR MIDPOINT RESPONSES WHEN FAKING PERSONALITY TESTS.
    König CJ; Mura M; Schmidt J
    Psychol Rep; 2015 Oct; 117(2):429-36. PubMed ID: 26444843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.