Faking propensity and faking-related change: A model-based analysis of the EPQ-R scores

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 497-501

  Ferrando, Pere J ^a   Anguiano Carrasco, Cristina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

Author keywords

Change scores; Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (EPQ R); Instructed faking; Social desirability; Two group two wave models

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959341431     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aguilar A., Tous J.M., Andrés A. Adaptación y estudio psicométrico del EPQ-R. Anuario de Psicología 1990, 46:101-118.
2. Burns G.N., Christiansen N.D. Sensitive or senseless: On the use of social desirability measures in selection and assessment. A closer examination of applicant faking behavior 2006, 113-148. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. R.L. Griffith, M.H. Peterson (Eds.).
3. Eysenck H.J., Eysenck S.B.G. Psychoticism as a dimension of personality 1976, Crane-Russak, New York.
4. Eysenck S.B.G., Eysenck H.J. An experimental investigation of 'desirability' response set in a personality questionnaire. Life Sciences 1963, 2:343-355.
5. Eysenck S.B.G., Eysenck H.J., Barrett P. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences 1985, 6:21-29.
6. Eysenck S.B.G., Eysenck H.J., Shaw L. The modification of personality and Lie scores by special 'honestly' instructions. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1974, 13:41-50.
7. Ferrando P.J., Anguiano-Carrasco C. A SEM at the individual and group level for assessing faking-related change. Structural Equation Modeling 2011, 18:1-19.
8. Ferrando P.J., Chico E., Lorenzo U. Dimensional analysis of the EPQ-R Lie scale with a Spanish sample: Gender differences and relations to N, E, and P. Personality and Individual Differences 1997, 23:631-637.
9. Furnham A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences 1986, 7:385-400.
10. Furnham A. Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes. Current Psychology 1990, 9:46-56.
11. Griffith R.L., Peterson M.H. The failure of social desirability measures to capture applicant faking behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008, 1:308-311.
12. Hancock G.R. Correlation/validity coefficients disattenuated for score reliability: A structural equation modeling approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1997, 57:598-606.
13. Hogan J., Barrett P., Hogan R. Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology 2007, 92:1270-1285.
14. Holden R.R., Passey J. Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences 2010, 49:446-450.
15. Lautenschlager G.J. Within-subject measures for the assessment of individual differences in faking. Educational and Psychological measurement 1986, 46:309-316.
16. Loo R., Wudel P. Estimates of fakeability on the Eysenck personality questionnaire. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 1979, 7:157-160.
17. Lord F.M. Further problems in the measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1958, 18:437-451.
18. McFarland L.A., Ryan A.M. Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006, 36:979-1016.
19. Mersman J.L., Shultz K.S. Individual differences in the ability t fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 24:217-227.
20. Mesmer-Magnus J., Viswesvaran C. Assessing response distortion in personality tests: A review of research designs and analytic strategies. A closer examination of applicant faking behaviour 2006, 85-113. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. R.L. Griffith, M.H. Peterson (Eds.).
21. Mueller-Hanson R.A., Heggestad E.D., Thornton G.C. Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological process underlying faking. Psychology Science 2006, 48:288-312.
22. Muthén L.K., Muthén B. Mplus user's guide 2007, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles. 5th ed.
23. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes 1991, 17-59. Academic Press, San Diego. J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.).
24. Quist, J. S., Arora, S., & Griffith, R. L. (2007). The Association of social desirability and applicant response distortion: A validation study. Paper presented at the 22nd annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, New York.
25. Rogosa D., Brandt D., Zimowski M. A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin 1982, 92:726-748.
26. Sass D.A., Smith P.L. The effects of parcelling unidimensional scales on structural parameters estimates in structural equation modelling. Structural Equation Modeling 2006, 13:566-586.
27. Wrensen, L. B., & Biderman, M. D. (2005). Factors related to faking ability: A structural equation model application. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
28. Zickar M.J., Robie C. Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, 84:551-563.