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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28300431)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Applicant Faking of Personality Inventories in College Admission: Applicants' Shift From Honest Responses Is Unsystematic and Related to the Perceived Relevance for the Profession.
    Krammer G
    J Pers Assess; 2020; 102(6):758-769. PubMed ID: 31403324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Applicant reactions and faking in real-life personnel selection.
    Honkaniemi L; Tolvanen A; Feldt T
    Scand J Psychol; 2011 Aug; 52(4):376-81. PubMed ID: 21752026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Deliberate faking on personality and emotional intelligence measures.
    Hartman NS; Grubb WL
    Psychol Rep; 2011 Feb; 108(1):120-38. PubMed ID: 21526598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Individual differences in faking integrity tests.
    Brown RD; Cothern CM
    Psychol Rep; 2002 Dec; 91(3 Pt 1):691-702. PubMed ID: 12530710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection.
    Landers RN; Sackett PR; Tuzinski KA
    J Appl Psychol; 2011 Jan; 96(1):202-10. PubMed ID: 20718510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Faking the MMPI-2: utility of the Subtle-Obvious scales.
    Brems C; Harris K
    J Clin Psychol; 1996 Sep; 52(5):525-33. PubMed ID: 8877687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The detection of faking on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI).
    Van Gorp WG; Meyer RG
    J Clin Psychol; 1986 Sep; 42(5):742-7. PubMed ID: 3760205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: a Monte Carlo investigation.
    Komar S; Brown DJ; Komar JA; Robie C
    J Appl Psychol; 2008 Jan; 93(1):140-54. PubMed ID: 18211141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking.
    Speer AB; Wegmeyer LJ; Tenbrink AP; Delacruz AY; Christiansen ND; Salim RM
    J Appl Psychol; 2023 Nov; 108(11):1812-1833. PubMed ID: 37326537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.
    Wetzel E; Frick S; Brown A
    Psychol Assess; 2021 Feb; 33(2):156-170. PubMed ID: 33151727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.