The use of response latencies to enhance self-report personality measures

Military Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 15-27

  Siem, Frederick M ^a  

^a Air Force Materiel Command   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347451087     PISSN: 08995605     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327876mp0801_2     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.
3. Costa, P. T., Zonderman, A. B., Williams, R. B., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Content and comprehensiveness in the MMPI: An item factor analysis in a normal adult sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 925-933.
4. Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An MMPI handbook (Vols. 1-2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5. Davis, R. A. (1989). Personality: Its use in selecting candidates for Air Force pilot training (Rep. No. AU-ARI-88-8). Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press.
6. Fekken, G. C., & Holden, R. R. (1992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality dimensions as schema. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 103-120.
7. Gough, H. (1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
8. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page & R. A. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 29. Personality - Current theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
9. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1987, August). Reaction time and self-report psychopathological assessment: Convergent and discriminant validity. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, New York.
10. Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., & Cotton, D. H. G. (1991). Assessing psychopathology using structured test item response latencies. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 111-118.
11. Kuiper, N. A. (1981). Convergent evidence for the self as prototype: The "inverted-U RT effect" for self and other judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438-443.
12. Lewicki, P. (1984). Self-schema and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1177-1190.
13. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
14. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
15. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
17. Popham, S. M., & Holden, R. R. (1990). Assessing MMPI constructs through the measurement of response latencies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 469-478.
18. Siem, F. M. (1992). Predictive validity of an automated personality inventory for Air Force pilot selection. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2, 261-270.
19. Stricker, L. J., & Alderton, D. L. (1991). Response latency measures for biographical inventories (Rep. No. RR-91-19-ONR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Strube, M. J., Berry, J. M., Lott, C. L., Fogelman, R., Steinhart, G., Moergen, S., & Davison, L. (1986). Self-schematic representation of the Type A and B behavior patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 170-180.
21. Wiener, S. (1989). Military flight aptitude tests. New York: Prentice-Hall.