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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26927958)

  • 1. Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality.
    Bowling NA; Huang JL; Bragg CB; Khazon S; Liu M; Blackmore CE
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2016 Aug; 111(2):218-29. PubMed ID: 26927958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Insufficient effort responding: examining an insidious confound in survey data.
    Huang JL; Liu M; Bowling NA
    J Appl Psychol; 2015 May; 100(3):828-45. PubMed ID: 25495093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An explanatory mixture IRT model for careless and insufficient effort responding in self-report measures.
    Ulitzsch E; Yildirim-Erbasli SN; Gorgun G; Bulut O
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Nov; 75(3):668-698. PubMed ID: 35730351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accounting for careless and insufficient effort responding in large-scale survey data-development, evaluation, and application of a screen-time-based weighting procedure.
    Ulitzsch E; Shin HJ; Lüdtke O
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Feb; 56(2):804-825. PubMed ID: 36867339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Response-Time-Based Latent Response Mixture Model for Identifying and Modeling Careless and Insufficient Effort Responding in Survey Data.
    Ulitzsch E; Pohl S; Khorramdel L; Kroehne U; von Davier M
    Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):593-619. PubMed ID: 34855118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Flagging insufficient effort responses in surveys: Stopping rule to prevent insufficient or excessive removal of doubtful data.
    Wang MD; Hau KT
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2024 Mar; 243():104135. PubMed ID: 38237472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Relationship of Insufficient Effort Responding and Response Styles: An Online Experiment.
    Alarcon GM; Lee MA
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():784375. PubMed ID: 35095672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A screen-time-based mixture model for identifying and monitoring careless and insufficient effort responding in ecological momentary assessment data.
    Ulitzsch E; Nestler S; Lüdtke O; Nagy G
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 38421768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being.
    Williams WC; Morelli SA; Ong DC; Zaki J
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2018 Aug; 115(2):224-254. PubMed ID: 29733662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Does the Over-Claiming Questionnaire measure overclaiming? Absent convergent validity in a large community sample.
    Ludeke SG; Makransky G
    Psychol Assess; 2016 Jun; 28(6):765-74. PubMed ID: 26372263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Big Five personality stability, change, and codevelopment across adolescence and early adulthood.
    Borghuis J; Denissen JJA; Oberski D; Sijtsma K; Meeus WHJ; Branje S; Koot HM; Bleidorn W
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2017 Oct; 113(4):641-657. PubMed ID: 28253001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dealing with Careless Responding in Survey Data: Prevention, Identification, and Recommended Best Practices.
    Ward MK; Meade AW
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2023 Jan; 74():577-596. PubMed ID: 35973734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. "Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being": Correction to Williams et al. (2018).
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2018 Oct; 115(4):656. PubMed ID: 30221959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Methods of Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparisons and Practical Recommendations.
    Hong M; Steedle JT; Cheng Y
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2020 Apr; 80(2):312-345. PubMed ID: 32158024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data.
    Arias VB; Garrido LE; Jenaro C; Martínez-Molina A; Arias B
    Behav Res Methods; 2020 Dec; 52(6):2489-2505. PubMed ID: 32462604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance.
    Kluemper DH; McLarty BD; Bing MN
    J Appl Psychol; 2015 Jan; 100(1):237-48. PubMed ID: 25198097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Age differences in big five behavior averages and variabilities across the adult life span: moving beyond retrospective, global summary accounts of personality.
    Noftle EE; Fleeson W
    Psychol Aging; 2010 Mar; 25(1):95-107. PubMed ID: 20230131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Personality traits and dental anxiety in self-reported bruxism. A cross-sectional study.
    Montero J; Gómez-Polo C
    J Dent; 2017 Oct; 65():45-50. PubMed ID: 28684309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Does the French Big Five Inventory evaluate facets other than the Big Five factors?].
    Courtois R; Petot JM; Lignier B; Lecocq G; Plaisant O
    Encephale; 2018 Jun; 44(3):208-214. PubMed ID: 28364967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power.
    Soto CJ; John OP
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2017 Jul; 113(1):117-143. PubMed ID: 27055049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.