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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34659043)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations.
    Cao M; Drasgow F
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Nov; 104(11):1347-1368. PubMed ID: 31070382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparing the efficacy of faking warning types in preemployment personality tests: A meta-analysis.
    Moon B; Daljeet KN; O'Neill TA; Harwood H; Awad W; Beletski LV
    J Appl Psychol; 2024 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 39133603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?
    Schulte N; Holling H; Bürkner PC
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Apr; 81(2):262-289. PubMed ID: 37929263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 17. Study Protocol on Intentional Distortion in Personality Assessment: Relationship with Test Format, Culture, and Cognitive Ability.
    Van Geert E; Orhon A; Cioca IA; Mamede R; Golušin S; Hubená B; Morillo D
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():933. PubMed ID: 27445902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Five Factor Biodata Inventory: resistance to faking.
    Sisco H; Reilly RR
    Psychol Rep; 2007 Aug; 101(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 17958100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. On Bank Assembly and Block Selection in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Adaptive Assessments.
    Kreitchmann RS; Sorrel MA; Abad FJ
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2023 Apr; 83(2):294-321. PubMed ID: 36866066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.