Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 69, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 548-565

  Ziegler, Matthias ^a   Buehner, Markus ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Common method variance; Faking; Social desirability; Spurious measurement error; Structural equation modeling; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 68949158382     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164408324469     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aluja, A., Garcia, O., Garcia, L. F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of the "NEO-PI-R" factor structure across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1879.
2. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). I-S-T 2000 R (Intelligenz-Struktur Test 2000 R) [Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000 R]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
3. Bäckström, M. (2007). Higher-order factors in a five-factor personality inventory and its relation to social desirability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 63-70.
4. Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 41-75.
5. Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 317-335.
6. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-PI-R nach Costa und McCrae [NEO-PI-R by Costa and McCrae]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
7. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2001). The effects of model parsimony and sampling error on the fit of structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 236-264.
9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
10. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets-Hierarchical personality-assessment using the revised NEO Personality-Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50.
11. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John Wiley.
12. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Ferrando, P. J., & Chico, E. (2001). Detecting dissimulation in personality test scores: A comparison between person-fit indices and detection scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 997-1012.
16. Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943-955.
17. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of marker variables for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
18. Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341-357.
19. Hancock, G. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and mimic approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373-388.
20. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. d. Toit & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future-Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195-216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
21. Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. M. (2007). Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality, and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 298-319.
22. Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270-1285.
23. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
24. Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549-566.
25. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148-161.
26. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.
27. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269.
28. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
29. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson & L. S. Wrightman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005a). Cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of self-presentation predict faking on personality measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 194-206.
31. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005b). Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 297-308.
32. Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1994). Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128, 255-265.
33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
34. Rogers, R. (1997). Researching dissimulation. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (2nd ed., pp. 309-327). New York: Guilford.
35. Rost J., Carstensen, C. H., & von Davier, M. (1997). Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. In J. Rost & R.E: Langeheine (Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences (pp. 324-332). New York: Waxmann.
36. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
37. Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual-differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206-224.
38. Vickers, A. J., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Statistics notes-Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. British Medical Journal, 323, 1123-1124.
39. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.
40. Ziegler, M., Schmidt-Atzert, L., Bühner, M., & Krumm, S. (2007). Fakability of different measurement methods for achievement motivation: Questionnaire, semi-projective, and objective. Psychology Science, 49, 291-307.