246 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]
