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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31403324)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives.
    Monaro M; Mazza C; Colasanti M; Ferracuti S; Orrù G; di Domenico A; Sartori G; Roma P
    Psychol Res; 2021 Nov; 85(8):3094-3107. PubMed ID: 33452928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. APPLICANTS' STRATEGIC USE OF EXTREME OR MIDPOINT RESPONSES WHEN FAKING PERSONALITY TESTS.
    König CJ; Mura M; Schmidt J
    Psychol Rep; 2015 Oct; 117(2):429-36. PubMed ID: 26444843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Perception of nursing profession - focus group interview among applicants to nursing education.
    Glerean N; Hupli M; Talman K; Haavisto E
    Scand J Caring Sci; 2019 Jun; 33(2):390-399. PubMed ID: 30604883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Influence of response instructions and response format on applicant perceptions of a situational judgement test for medical school selection.
    De Leng WE; Stegers-Jager KM; Born MP; Themmen APN
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Nov; 18(1):282. PubMed ID: 30477494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The predictive validity of subtle and obvious empirically derived psychological test items under faking conditions.
    Worthington DL; Schlottmann RS
    J Pers Assess; 1986; 50(2):171-81. PubMed ID: 3761120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Identifying single-item faked responses in personality tests: A new TF-IDF-based method.
    Purpura A; Giorgianni D; Orrù G; Melis G; Sartori G
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0272970. PubMed ID: 36007085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect!
    Röhner J; Schröder-Abé M; Schütz A
    Exp Psychol; 2011; 58(6):464-72. PubMed ID: 21592941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Big five personality traits reflected in job applicants' social media postings.
    Stoughton JW; Thompson LF; Meade AW
    Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw; 2013 Nov; 16(11):800-5. PubMed ID: 23790360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012).
    Holden RR; Lambert CE
    Behav Res Methods; 2015 Dec; 47(4):1436-1442. PubMed ID: 25381021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. The Effects of Regulatory Fit between Explanation Framing and Applicants' Regulatory Foci on Applicant Reaction.
    Bian R; Lin P; Gao Q; Li J; Yang X
    J Psychol; 2020; 154(2):176-198. PubMed ID: 31738655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Once an Impression Manager, Always an Impression Manager? Antecedents of Honest and Deceptive Impression Management Use and Variability across Multiple Job Interviews.
    Roulin N; Bourdage JS
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():29. PubMed ID: 28174546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Discerning applicants' interests in rural medicine: a textual analysis of admission essays.
    Elam CL; Weaver AD; Whittler ET; Stratton TD; Asher LM; Scott KL; Wilson EA
    Med Educ Online; 2015; 20():27081. PubMed ID: 25795383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Effects of positive impression management on the NEO Personality Inventory--Revised in a clinical population.
    Ballenger JF; Caldwell-Andrews A; Baer RA
    Psychol Assess; 2001 Jun; 13(2):254-60. PubMed ID: 11433800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.