Uncovering Faking Samples in Applicant, Incumbent, and Experimental Data Sets: An Application of Mixed-Model Item Response Theory

Organizational Research Methods

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 168-190

  Zickar, Michael J ^a   Gibby, Robert E ^a   Robie, Chet ^b  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Faking; Item response theory; Mixed model item analysis; Personality measurement; Response distortion

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342497745     PISSN: 10944281     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1094428104263674     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection for Akaike's information criterion. Psychometrika, 53, 345-370.
3. Drasgow, F., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Item response theory. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 577-636). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
4. Eid, M., & Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 20-30.
5. Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133.
6. Everitt, B. S., & Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distributions. London: Chapman and Hall.
7. Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317-349.
8. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Gumpel, T. P. (1999). Use of item response theory to develop a measure of first-grade readiness. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 285-293.
10. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, 28-42.
11. Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
12. Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big-Five" personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
13. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14. Levin, R. A. & Zickar, M. J. (2002). Investigating self-presentation, lies, and bullshit: Understanding faking and its effects on hiring decisions using theory, field research, and simulation. In F. Drasgow & J. Brett (Eds.), The new millennium of work (pp. 253-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
16. McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821.
17. Miller, M. L., & Thayer, J. F. (1989). On the existence of discrete classes in personality: Is self-monitoring the correct joint to carve? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 143-155.
18. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
19. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
20. Personnel Decisions International. (1997). Selection systems test scale manual. Unpublished document. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
21. Reise, S. P. (1999). Personality measurement issues viewed through the eyes of IRT. In S. E. Embretson & S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know (pp. 219-241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Reise, S. P., & Gomel, J. N. (1995). Modeling qualitative variation within latent trait dimensions: Application of mixed-measurement to personality assessment. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 341-358.
23. Robie, C., Zickar, M. J., & Schmit, M. J. (2001). Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales. Human Performance, 14, 187-207.
24. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644.
25. Rost, J. (1991). A logistic mixture distribution model for polychotomous item responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 75-92.
26. Rost, J. (1997). Logistic mixture models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 449-463). New York: Springer.
27. Rost, J., Carstensen, C. H., & von Davier, M. (1997). Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. In J. Rost & R. Langeheine (Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences (pp. 324-332). New York: Waxmann.
28. Rost, J., & von Davier, M. (1994). A conditional item fit index for Rasch models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 171-182.
29. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph No. 17.
30. Schmit, M. J., Kihm, J. A., & Robie, C. (2000). Development of a global measure of personality. Personnel Psychology, 53, 153-193.
31. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.
32. von Davier, M. V., & Rost, J. (1995). WINMIRA: Windows mixed Rasch model analysis [Computer software]. Kiel, the Netherlands: Institute for Science Education.
33. White, L. A., Nord, R. D., Mael, F. A., & Young, M. C. (1993). The Assessment of Background and Life Experiences (ABLE). In T. Trent & J. H. Laurence (Eds.), Adaptability screening for the armed forces (pp. 101-162). Washington, DC: Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel).
34. Young, M. C., White, L. A., & Oppler, S. H. (1991, October). Coaching effects on the Assessment of Background and Life Experience (ABLE). Paper presented at the meeting of the Military Testing Association, Dallas, TX.
35. Zickar, M. J. (1998). Modeling item-level data with item response theory. Current Directions in Psychology, 7, 104-109.
36. Zickar, M. J. (2000). Modeling faking on personality tests. In D. Ilgen & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations (pp. 95-108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37. Zickar, M. J. (2001). Conquering the next frontier: Modeling personality data with item response theory. In B. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Applied personality psychology: The intersection of personality and I/O psychology (pp. 141-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38. Zickar, M. J., & Burnfield, J. L. (2003). A Monte Carlo investigation of the polytomous mixed Rasch model. Unpublished manuscript.
39. Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551-563.
40. Zickar, M. J., Rosse, J., Levin, R. (1996, May). Modeling of faking in a selection context. In C. L. Hulin (Chair), The third scientific discipline: Computational modeling in organizational research. Meeting of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
41. Zickar, M. J., & Ury, K. L. (2002). Developing an interpretation of item parameters for personality items: Content correlates of parameter estimates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 19-31.