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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27076506)

  • 1. Using G-Theory to Enhance Evidence of Reliability and Validity for Common Uses of the Paulhus Deception Scales.
    Vispoel WP; Morris CA; Kilinc M
    Assessment; 2018 Jan; 25(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 27076506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A generalizability analysis of score consistency for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.
    Vispoel WP; Tao S
    Psychol Assess; 2013 Mar; 25(1):94-104. PubMed ID: 22867009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Psychometric properties for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: dichotomous versus polytomous conventional and IRT scoring.
    Vispoel WP; Kim HY
    Psychol Assess; 2014 Sep; 26(3):878-91. PubMed ID: 24708082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding.
    Stöber J; Dette DE; Musch J
    J Pers Assess; 2002 Apr; 78(2):370-89. PubMed ID: 12067199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Detecting socially desirable responding with the Personality Assessment Inventory: the Positive Impression Management scale and the Defensiveness Index.
    Peebles J; Moore RJ
    J Clin Psychol; 1998 Aug; 54(5):621-8. PubMed ID: 9696112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Socially desirable responding in Chinese university students: denial and enhancement?
    Li F; Li Y; Wang Y
    Psychol Rep; 2015 Apr; 116(2):409-21. PubMed ID: 25730746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a factor analysis.
    Li F; Li Y
    Psychol Rep; 2008 Dec; 103(3):727-31. PubMed ID: 19320206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR).
    Holden RR; Starzyk KB; McLeod LD; Edwards MJ
    Assessment; 2000 Jun; 7(2):163-75. PubMed ID: 10868254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Can Faking Be Measured With Dedicated Validity Scales? Within-Subject Trifactor Mixture Modeling Applied to BIDR Responses.
    Guenole N; Brown A; Lim V
    Assessment; 2023 Jul; 30(5):1523-1542. PubMed ID: 35786013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. What if we fake emotional intelligence? A test of criterion validity attenuation.
    Choi S; Kluemper DH; Sauley KS
    J Pers Assess; 2011 May; 93(3):270-7. PubMed ID: 21516586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: a meta-analytic review.
    Ray JV; Hall J; Rivera-Hudson N; Poythress NG; Lilienfeld SO; Morano M
    Personal Disord; 2013 Jan; 4(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 22452779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management correlates of EPQ-R dimensions.
    Davies MF; French CC; Keogh E
    J Psychol; 1998 Jul; 132(4):401-6. PubMed ID: 9637022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Validating an inventory for the assessment of egoistic bias and moralistic bias as two separable components of social desirability.
    Musch J; Ostapczuk M; Klaiber Y
    J Pers Assess; 2012; 94(6):620-9. PubMed ID: 22489614
    [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. Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria.
    Caldwell-Andrews A; Baer RA; Berry DT
    J Pers Assess; 2000 Jun; 74(3):472-88. PubMed ID: 10900573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Deception in prison assessment of substance abuse.
    Richards HJ; Pai SM
    J Subst Abuse Treat; 2003 Mar; 24(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 12745029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of the PAI and MMPI-2 as predictors of faking bad in college students.
    Blanchard DD; McGrath RE; Pogge DL; Khadivi A
    J Pers Assess; 2003 Apr; 80(2):197-205. PubMed ID: 12700022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.