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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37640383)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. To Fake or Not to Fake: Antecedents to Interview Faking, Warning Instructions, and Its Impact on Applicant Reactions.
    Law SJ; Bourdage J; O'Neill TA
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1771. PubMed ID: 27895609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The role of emotions as mechanisms of mid-test warning messages during personality testing: A field experiment.
    Li H; Fan J; Zhao G; Wang M; Zheng L; Meng H; Weng QD; Liu Y; Lievens F
    J Appl Psychol; 2022 Jan; 107(1):40-59. PubMed ID: 33630620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Testing the efficacy of a new procedure for reducing faking on personality tests within selection contexts.
    Fan J; Gao D; Carroll SA; Lopez FJ; Tian TS; Meng H
    J Appl Psychol; 2012 Jul; 97(4):866-80. PubMed ID: 22250667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. An Investigation of Situational and Dispositional Antecedents of Faking Intentions in Selection Interviews.
    Bill B; Melchers KG; Buehl AK; Wank S
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():2034. PubMed ID: 32973619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Faking to fit in: Applicants' response strategies to match organizational culture.
    Roulin N; Krings F
    J Appl Psychol; 2020 Feb; 105(2):130-145. PubMed ID: 31233316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.