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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32038431)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Can People With Higher Versus Lower Scores on Impression Management or Self-Monitoring Be Identified Through Different Traces Under Faking?
    Röhner J; Thoss P; Uziel L
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Jun; 84(3):594-631. PubMed ID: 38756458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Assessing the Impact of Faking on Binary Personality Measures: An IRT-Based Multiple-Group Factor Analytic Procedure.
    Ferrando PJ; Anguiano-Carrasco C
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2009 Jul; 44(4):497-524. PubMed ID: 26735594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: an explorative study.
    Mazza C; Monaro M; Burla F; Colasanti M; Orrù G; Ferracuti S; Roma P
    Sci Rep; 2020 Mar; 10(1):4835. PubMed ID: 32179844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Calibrating Items Using an Unfolding Model of Item Response Theory: The Case of the Trait Personality Questionnaire 5 (TPQue5).
    Mitropoulou EM; Zampetakis LA; Tsaousis I
    Eval Rev; 2023 Dec; ():193841X231223374. PubMed ID: 38146227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.