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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35441359)

  • 1. IAT faking indices revisited: Aspects of replicability and differential validity.
    Röhner J; Holden RR; Schütz A
    Behav Res Methods; 2023 Feb; 55(2):670-693. PubMed ID: 35441359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect!
    Röhner J; Schröder-Abé M; Schütz A
    Exp Psychol; 2011; 58(6):464-72. PubMed ID: 21592941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Lying on the Dissection Table: Anatomizing Faked Responses.
    Röhner J; Thoss P; Schütz A
    Behav Res Methods; 2022 Dec; 54(6):2878-2904. PubMed ID: 35132586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Uninstructed BIAT faking when ego depleted or in normal state: differential effect on brain and behavior.
    Wolff W; Schindler S; Englert C; Brand R; Kissler J
    BMC Neurosci; 2016 May; 17(1):18. PubMed ID: 27142046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT).
    Röhner J; Ewers T
    Behav Res Methods; 2016 Mar; 48(1):243-58. PubMed ID: 25701107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Intentional faking of the single category Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Association Test.
    Stieger S; Göritz AS; Hergovich A; Voracek M
    Psychol Rep; 2011 Aug; 109(1):219-30. PubMed ID: 22049663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is the implicit association test immune to faking?
    Steffens MC
    Exp Psychol; 2004; 51(3):165-79. PubMed ID: 15267125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of implicitly incentivized faking on explicit and implicit measures of doping attitude: when athletes want to pretend an even more negative attitude to doping.
    Wolff W; Schindler S; Brand R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0118507. PubMed ID: 25902142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cerebral correlates of faking: evidence from a brief implicit association test on doping attitudes.
    Schindler S; Wolff W; Kissler JM; Brand R
    Front Behav Neurosci; 2015; 9():139. PubMed ID: 26074798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Detection of faking on the MMPI-2: differentiation among faking-bad, denial, and claiming extreme virtue.
    Lim J; Butcher JN
    J Pers Assess; 1996 Aug; 67(1):1-25. PubMed ID: 16367656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012).
    Holden RR; Lambert CE
    Behav Res Methods; 2015 Dec; 47(4):1436-1442. PubMed ID: 25381021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characteristics of successful fakers versus unsuccessful fakers: is empathy, intelligence, or personality associated with faking PTSD on the MMPI-2?
    Moyer DM; Gordon RM; Ward JT; Burkhardt BB
    Psychol Rep; 2006 Dec; 99(3):747-50. PubMed ID: 17305191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of warning strategies to reduce faking during military recruitment.
    Feeney JR; Goffin RD; Kemp C; Beshai S; Klammer JD
    Mil Psychol; 2023 Aug; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 37640383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Objective detection of faking on role-play tests of assertion: gender differences.
    Kern JM
    Psychol Rep; 1996 Apr; 78(2):355-61. PubMed ID: 9148285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.