Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 297-308

  Pauls, Cornelia A ^a   Crost, Nicolas W ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Applicant instructions; Construct validity; Fake good instruction; Personality questionnaires

Indexed keywords

EID: 20444474128     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. G.M. Alliger S.O. Lilienfeld & K.E. Mitchell The susceptibility of overt and covert integrity tests to coaching and faking. Psychological Science 7 1996 32-39
2. J.F. Ballenger A. Caldwell-Andrews & R.A. Baer Effects of positive impression management on the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised in a clinical population. Psychological Assessment 13 2001 254-260
3. M.R. Barrick & M.K. Mount Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 1996 261-272
4. W.P. Dunlap J.M. Cortina J.B. Vaslow & M.J. Burke Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods 1 1996 170-177
5. J.E. Ellingson P.R. Sackett & L.M. Hough Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 1999 155-166
6. A.G.P. Elliot Some implications of lie scale scores in real-life selection. Journal of Occupational Psychology 54 1981 9-16
7. A. Furnham Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews 9 1990 46-55
8. B. Griffin B. Hesketh & D. Grayson Applicants faking good: Evidence of item bias in the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences 36 2004 1545-1558
9. D. Mahar J. Cologon & J. Duck Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences 18 1995 605-609
10. J.L. Mersman & K.S. Shultz Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences 24 1998 217-227
11. W. Michaelis & H.J. Eysenck The determination of personality inventory factor patterns and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetic Psychology 118 1971 223-234
12. I. Olkin Correlations revisited In: J.C. Stanley (Ed.), Improving Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis 1967 Rand McNally Chicago 102-128
13. Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A., (2003). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae, revidierte Form (NEO-PI-R) [NEO Personality Inventory according to Costa and McCrae Revised (NEO-PI-R)]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
14. D.L. Paulhus & O.P. John Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality 66 1998 1025-1060
15. C.A. Pauls & N.W. Crost Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences 37 2004 1137-1151
16. C.A. Pauls & G. Stemmler Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences 35 2003 263-275
17. M.J. Schmit & A.M. Ryan The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 1993 699-974
18. J.H. Steiger Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin 87 1980 245-251
19. G.D. Topping & J.G. O'Gorman Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences 23 1997 117-124
20. C. Viswesvaran & D.S. Ones Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59 1999 197-210
21. J.S. Wiggins Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimulation under standard and social desirability instruction. Journal of Consulting Psychology 23 1959 419-427
22. M.J. Zickar & C. Robie Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 1999 551-563