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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26735594)

  • 1. Assessing the Impact of Faking on Binary Personality Measures: An IRT-Based Multiple-Group Factor Analytic Procedure.
    Ferrando PJ; Anguiano-Carrasco C
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2009 Jul; 44(4):497-524. PubMed ID: 26735594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Factor-Analytic Model for Assessing Individual Differences in Response Scale Usage.
    Ferrando PJ
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2014; 49(4):390-405. PubMed ID: 26765805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An Item-Level Analysis for Detecting Faking on Personality Tests: Appropriateness of Ideal Point Item Response Theory Models.
    Liu J; Zhang J
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():3090. PubMed ID: 32038431
    [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. 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]  

  • 6. Detection Of Faking on the Comrey Personality Scales.
    Comrey AL; Backer TE
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1975 Jul; 10(3):311-9. PubMed ID: 26829632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Factor analytic approaches to personality item-level data.
    Panter AT; Swygert KA; Grant Dahlstrom W; Tanaka JS
    J Pers Assess; 1997 Jun; 68(3):561-89. PubMed ID: 16372867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. IRT-related factor analytic procedures for testing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and Internet-administered questionnaires.
    Ferrando PJ; Lorenzo-Seva U
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Jun; 10(2):193-205. PubMed ID: 15998177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The "g" in Faking: Doublethink the Validity of Personality Self-Report Measures for Applicant Selection.
    Geiger M; Olderbak S; Sauter R; Wilhelm O
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():2153. PubMed ID: 30483179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The predictive validity of subtle and obvious empirically derived psychological test items under faking conditions.
    Worthington DL; Schlottmann RS
    J Pers Assess; 1986; 50(2):171-81. PubMed ID: 3761120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Unrestricted Factor Analytic Procedures for Assessing Acquiescent Responding in Balanced, Theoretically Unidimensional Personality Scales.
    Ferrando PJ; Lorenzo-Seva U; Chico E
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2003 Jul; 38(3):353-74. PubMed ID: 26771223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures.
    Chernyshenko OS; Stark S; Drasgow F; Roberts BW
    Psychol Assess; 2007 Mar; 19(1):88-106. PubMed ID: 17371125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Detection of faking on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
    Stanwick DJ; Garrison WM
    J Pers Assess; 1982 Aug; 46(4):426-31. PubMed ID: 16370594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Comprehensive IRT Approach for Modeling Binary, Graded, and Continuous Responses With Error in Persons and Items.
    Ferrando PJ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Jul; 43(5):339-359. PubMed ID: 31235981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.