137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35007104)
1. Intermittent faking of personality profiles in high-stakes assessments: A grade of membership analysis.
Brown A; Böckenholt U
Psychol Methods; 2022 Oct; 27(5):895-916. PubMed ID: 35007104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Measuring faking in the employment interview: development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale.
Levashina J; Campion MA
J Appl Psychol; 2007 Nov; 92(6):1638-56. PubMed ID: 18020802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
