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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35133553)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Confidence and accuracy in trait inference: judgment by similarity.
    Koehler DJ; Brenner LA; Liberman V; Tversky A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 1996 Jun; 92(1):33-57. PubMed ID: 8693953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Fit Indices for Measurement Invariance Tests in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Lee H; Smith WZ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 44(4):282-295. PubMed ID: 32536730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. A dog's got personality: a cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans.
    Gosling SD; Kwan VS; John OP
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2003 Dec; 85(6):1161-9. PubMed ID: 14674821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. On the Validity of Forced Choice Scores Derived From the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model.
    Walton KE; Cherkasova L; Roberts RD
    Assessment; 2020 Jun; 27(4):706-718. PubMed ID: 31007043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. OBSERVABLE AND UNOBSERVABLE ASPECTS OF TRAITS IN SELF-OTHER COMPARISONS.
    Niewiarowski J; Karylowski JJ
    Psychol Rep; 2015 Oct; 117(2):496-507. PubMed ID: 26340047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Using Cross-Classified Structural Equation Models to Examine the Accuracy of Personality Judgments.
    Nestler S; Back MD
    Psychometrika; 2017 Jun; 82(2):475-497. PubMed ID: 26630991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. A Bayesian Random Block Item Response Theory Model for Forced-Choice Formats.
    Lee H; Smith WZ
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 80(3):578-603. PubMed ID: 32425220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2016 Sep; 89():106-33. PubMed ID: 27570097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Forming impressions from self-truncated samples of traits-interplay of Thurstonian and Brunswikian sampling effects.
    Prager J; Fiedler K
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2021 Sep; 121(3):474-497. PubMed ID: 34807699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The Motivational Value Systems Questionnaire (MVSQ): Psychometric Analysis Using a Forced Choice Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Merk J; Schlotz W; Falter T
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1626. PubMed ID: 28979228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Alternative Approaches to Addressing Non-Normal Distributions in the Application of IRT Models to Personality Measures.
    Reise SP; Rodriguez A; Spritzer KL; Hays RD
    J Pers Assess; 2018; 100(4):363-374. PubMed ID: 29087217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Taking a Disagreeing Perspective Improves the Accuracy of People's Quantitative Estimates.
    Van de Calseyde PPFM; Efendić E
    Psychol Sci; 2022 Jun; 33(6):971-983. PubMed ID: 35648655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments.
    Albright L; Malloy TE; Dong Q; Kenny DA; Fang X; Winquist L; Yu D
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1997 Mar; 72(3):558-69. PubMed ID: 9120784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Construal processes and trait ambiguity: implications for self-peer agreement in personality judgment.
    Hayes AF; Dunning D
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1997 Mar; 72(3):664-77. PubMed ID: 9120790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.