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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27445902)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. A Meta-Analysis of the Faking Resistance of Forced-Choice Personality Inventories.
    Martínez A; Salgado JF
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():732241. PubMed ID: 34659043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance.
    Heggestad ED; Morrison M; Reeve CL; McCloy RA
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Jan; 91(1):9-24. PubMed ID: 16435935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) as an indicator for counterproductive work behavior: Comparing validity in applicant, honest, and directed faking conditions.
    Trent JD; Barron LG; Rose MR; Carretta TR
    Mil Psychol; 2020; 32(1):51-59. PubMed ID: 38536272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Can Forced-Choice Response Format Reduce Faking of Socially Aversive Personality Traits?
    Valone ALY; Meade AW
    J Pers Assess; 2024 Mar; ():1-13. PubMed ID: 38501713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Joint modeling of the two-alternative multidimensional forced-choice personality measurement and its response time by a Thurstonian D-diffusion item response model.
    Bunji K; Okada K
    Behav Res Methods; 2020 Jun; 52(3):1091-1107. PubMed ID: 32394181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings.
    Anglim J; Bozic S; Little J; Lievens F
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2018 May; 23(2):311-321. PubMed ID: 29022186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests.
    Hontangas PM; de la Torre J; Ponsoda V; Leenen I; Morillo D; Abad FJ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2015 Nov; 39(8):598-612. PubMed ID: 29881030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Less Evaluative Measures of Personality in Job Applicant Contexts: The Effect on Socially Desirable Responding and Criterion Validity.
    Wood JK; Anglim J; Horwood S
    J Pers Assess; 2024; 106(3):372-383. PubMed ID: 37703381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. A genetic algorithm for optimal assembly of pairwise forced-choice questionnaires.
    Kreitchmann RS; Abad FJ; Sorrel MA
    Behav Res Methods; 2022 Jun; 54(3):1476-1492. PubMed ID: 34505277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus.
    Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Behav Res Methods; 2012 Dec; 44(4):1135-47. PubMed ID: 22733226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Liar! Liar! (when stakes are higher): Understanding how the overclaiming technique can be used to measure faking in personnel selection.
    Dunlop PD; Bourdage JS; de Vries RE; McNeill IM; Jorritsma K; Orchard M; Austen T; Baines T; Choe WK
    J Appl Psychol; 2020 Aug; 105(8):784-799. PubMed ID: 31714104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Faking good: self-enhancement in medical school applicants.
    Griffin B; Wilson IG
    Med Educ; 2012 May; 46(5):485-90. PubMed ID: 22515756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Examining personality for the selection and classification of soldiers: Validity and differential validity across jobs.
    Nye CD; White LA; Drasgow F; Prasad J; Chernyshenko OS; Stark S
    Mil Psychol; 2020; 32(1):60-70. PubMed ID: 38536306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Modeling Faking in the Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format: The Faking Mixture Model.
    Frick S
    Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):773-794. PubMed ID: 34927219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Methodological and conceptual issues regarding occupational psychosocial coronary heart disease epidemiology.
    Burr H; Formazin M; Pohrt A
    Scand J Work Environ Health; 2016 May; 42(3):251-5. PubMed ID: 26960179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.