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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21967296)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Five Factor Biodata Inventory: resistance to faking.
    Sisco H; Reilly RR
    Psychol Rep; 2007 Aug; 101(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 17958100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct?
    Bensch D; Maaß U; Greiff S; Horstmann KT; Ziegler M
    Psychol Assess; 2019 Apr; 31(4):532-544. PubMed ID: 30869958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Uninstructed BIAT faking when ego depleted or in normal state: differential effect on brain and behavior.
    Wolff W; Schindler S; Englert C; Brand R; Kissler J
    BMC Neurosci; 2016 May; 17(1):18. PubMed ID: 27142046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.
    Wetzel E; Frick S; Brown A
    Psychol Assess; 2021 Feb; 33(2):156-170. PubMed ID: 33151727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.