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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27445902)

  • 1. Study Protocol on Intentional Distortion in Personality Assessment: Relationship with Test Format, Culture, and Cognitive Ability.
    Van Geert E; Orhon A; Cioca IA; Mamede R; Golušin S; Hubená B; Morillo D
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():933. PubMed ID: 27445902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?
    Schulte N; Holling H; Bürkner PC
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Apr; 81(2):262-289. PubMed ID: 37929263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Motivational Value Systems Questionnaire (MVSQ): Psychometric Analysis Using a Forced Choice Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Merk J; Schlotz W; Falter T
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1626. PubMed ID: 28979228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On the Statistical and Practical Limitations of Thurstonian IRT Models.
    Bürkner PC; Schulte N; Holling H
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 79(5):827-854. PubMed ID: 31488915
    [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. Integration of the Forced-Choice Questionnaire and the Likert Scale: A Simulation Study.
    Xiao Y; Liu H; Li H
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():806. PubMed ID: 28572781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Personality retesting for managing intentional distortion.
    Ellingson JE; Heggestad ED; Makarius EE
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2012 May; 102(5):1063-1076. PubMed ID: 22352327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the Validity of Forced Choice Scores Derived From the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model.
    Walton KE; Cherkasova L; Roberts RD
    Assessment; 2020 Jun; 27(4):706-718. PubMed ID: 31007043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Motivation and Opportunity for Socially Desirable Responding Does Not Alter the General Factor of Personality.
    Pelt DHM; Van der Linden D; Dunkel CS; Born MP
    Assessment; 2021 Jul; 28(5):1376-1396. PubMed ID: 31619053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On Bank Assembly and Block Selection in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Adaptive Assessments.
    Kreitchmann RS; Sorrel MA; Abad FJ
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2023 Apr; 83(2):294-321. PubMed ID: 36866066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of Single-Response Format and Forced-Choice Format Instruments Using Thurstonian Item Response Theory.
    Dueber DM; Love AMA; Toland MD; Turner TA
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Feb; 79(1):108-128. PubMed ID: 30636784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations.
    Cao M; Drasgow F
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Nov; 104(11):1347-1368. PubMed ID: 31070382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Investigating the Normativity of Trait Estimates from Multidimensional Forced-Choice Data.
    Frick S; Brown A; Wetzel E
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 34464217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format Character Measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT Approach.
    Ng V; Lee P; Ho MR; Kuykendall L; Stark S; Tay L
    J Pers Assess; 2021; 103(2):224-237. PubMed ID: 32208939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. On the Information Obtainable from Comparative Judgments.
    Bürkner PC
    Psychometrika; 2022 Dec; 87(4):1439-1472. PubMed ID: 35133553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Forced-Choice Assessment of Work-Related Maladaptive Personality Traits: Preliminary Evidence From an Application of Thurstonian Item Response Modeling.
    Guenole N; Brown AA; Cooper AJ
    Assessment; 2018 Jun; 25(4):513-526. PubMed ID: 27056730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items.
    Kreitchmann RS; Abad FJ; Ponsoda V; Nieto MD; Morillo D
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2309. PubMed ID: 31681103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires.
    Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Psychol Methods; 2013 Mar; 18(1):36-52. PubMed ID: 23148475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion.
    Ellingson JE; Sackett PR; Connelly BS
    J Appl Psychol; 2007 Mar; 92(2):386-95. PubMed ID: 17371086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.