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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30483179)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The Good, the Bad, and the Clever: Faking Ability as a Socio-Emotional Ability?
    Geiger M; Bärwaldt R; Wilhelm O
    J Intell; 2021 Mar; 9(1):. PubMed ID: 33806368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Individual Difference Variables and the Occurrence and Effectiveness of Faking Behavior in Interviews.
    Buehl AK; Melchers KG
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():686. PubMed ID: 28539895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.
    McFarland LA; Ryan AM
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Oct; 85(5):812-21. PubMed ID: 11055152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Detection Of Faking on the Comrey Personality Scales.
    Comrey AL; Backer TE
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1975 Jul; 10(3):311-9. PubMed ID: 26829632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. To Fake or Not to Fake: Antecedents to Interview Faking, Warning Instructions, and Its Impact on Applicant Reactions.
    Law SJ; Bourdage J; O'Neill TA
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1771. PubMed ID: 27895609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of warning strategies to reduce faking during military recruitment.
    Feeney JR; Goffin RD; Kemp C; Beshai S; Klammer JD
    Mil Psychol; 2023 Aug; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 37640383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An Item-Level Analysis for Detecting Faking on Personality Tests: Appropriateness of Ideal Point Item Response Theory Models.
    Liu J; Zhang J
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():3090. PubMed ID: 32038431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Introducing Machine Learning to Detect Personality Faking-Good in a Male Sample: A New Model Based on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Scales and Reaction Times.
    Mazza C; Monaro M; Orrù G; Burla F; Colasanti M; Ferracuti S; Roma P
    Front Psychiatry; 2019; 10():389. PubMed ID: 31275176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.