The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 613-621

  Schmitt, Neal ^a   Oswald, Frederick L ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Corrections for faking; Faking; Mean performance; Noncognitive measures; Selection ratios and validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COGNITION; EMPLOYMENT; HUMAN; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS;

ATTITUDE; COGNITION; EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL; EMPLOYMENT; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33745322833     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.613     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
3. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-272.
4. Boudreau, J. W. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 621-746). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
5. Brown, C. W., & Ghiselli, E. E. (1953). Percent increase in proficiency resulting from use of selective devices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 341-345.
6. Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen Factor Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
7. Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 847-860.
8. Cunningham, M. R., Wong, D. T., & Barbee, A. P. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies of the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 643-658.
9. Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155-166.
10. Goffin, R. D., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 340-344.
11. Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209-244.
12. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. R., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
13. Lautenschlager, G. J. (1994). Accuracy and faking of background data. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford, & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook (pp. 391-420). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
14. Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348-355.
15. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-270.
16. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing in personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
17. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Pollina, D. A., Dollins, A. B., Senter, S. A., Krapohl, D. J., & Ryan, A. H. (2004). Comparison of polygraph data obtained from individuals involved in mock crimes and actual criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1099-1105.
19. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion of preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644.
20. SAS Institute. (1999). SAS/IML User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Author.
21. Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264.
22. Zickar, M. J., Rosse, J. G., Levin, R. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1996, April). Modeling the effects of faking on personality tests. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.