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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35007104)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Using Overt and Covert Items in Self-Report Personality Tests: Susceptibility to Faking and Identifiability of Possible Fakers.
    Vidotto G; Anselmi P; Filipponi L; Tommasi M; Saggino A
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():1100. PubMed ID: 30018582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection.
    Landers RN; Sackett PR; Tuzinski KA
    J Appl Psychol; 2011 Jan; 96(1):202-10. PubMed ID: 20718510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Predicting instructed simulation and dissimulation when screening for depressive symptoms.
    Goerigk S; Hilbert S; Jobst A; Falkai P; Bühner M; Stachl C; Bischl B; Coors S; Ehring T; Padberg F; Sarubin N
    Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci; 2020 Mar; 270(2):153-168. PubMed ID: 30542818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. A Spectral Method for Identifiable Grade of Membership Analysis with Binary Responses.
    Chen L; Gu Y
    Psychometrika; 2024 Jun; 89(2):626-657. PubMed ID: 38360980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Detecting fake-good and fake-bad MMPI-2 profiles.
    Graham JR; Watts D; Timbrook RE
    J Pers Assess; 1991 Oct; 57(2):264-77. PubMed ID: 1955975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria.
    Caldwell-Andrews A; Baer RA; Berry DT
    J Pers Assess; 2000 Jun; 74(3):472-88. PubMed ID: 10900573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management.
    Farrow TF; Burgess J; Wilkinson ID; Hunter MD
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jan; 67():159-74. PubMed ID: 25527112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Faking the MMPI-2: utility of the Subtle-Obvious scales.
    Brems C; Harris K
    J Clin Psychol; 1996 Sep; 52(5):525-33. PubMed ID: 8877687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Deceptiveness on the PAI: a study of naïve faking with psychiatric inpatients.
    Baity MR; Siefert CJ; Chambers A; Blais MA
    J Pers Assess; 2007 Feb; 88(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 17266410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Challenging response latencies in faking detection: The case of few items and no warnings.
    Röhner J; Holden RR
    Behav Res Methods; 2022 Feb; 54(1):324-333. PubMed ID: 34173217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The impact of exposure to Internet-based information about the Rorschach and the MMPI-2 on psychiatric outpatients' ability to simulate mentally healthy test performance.
    Hartmann E; Hartmann T
    J Pers Assess; 2014; 96(4):432-44. PubMed ID: 24528223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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