Modeling Effects of Faking on an Objective Personality Test

Journal of Individual Differences

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 210-218

  Arendasy, Martin ^a   Sommer, Markus ^a   Herle, Margit ^b   Schützhofer, Bettina ^c   Inwanschitz, Dagmar ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^b Verkehrspsychologische Untersuchungsstelle AAAV   (Austria)

^c Sicher unterwegs GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

Faking; Item response theory; Objective personality test

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054934151     PISSN: 16140001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000053     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adriaan H., van der Molen H., Wilde G.J. Differences in risk experience between sensation avoiders and sensation seekers. Personality and Individual Differences 1996, 20:71-79.
2. Andersen E.B. A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrica 1973, 8:123-140.
3. Arendasy M., Hergovich A., Sommer M., Bognar B. Dimensionality and construct validity of a video-based objective personality test for the assessment of willingness to take risks in road traffic. Psychological Reports 2005, 97:309-320.
4. Baldinger, D. (2006). Der Einfluss sozial erwünschten Verhaltens auf das Ergebnis Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests [The effect of socially desirable behavior on the test scores of objective personality questionnaires]. Unpublished master thesis, University of Vienna, Austria.
5. BASt Begutachtungs-Leitlinien zur Kraftfahrereignung [Guidelines for assessing fitness to drive] 2007, BASt, Bergisch Gladbach.
6. Cattell R.B., Kline P. The scientific analysis of personality and motivation 1977, Academic Press, London.
7. Embretson S.R., Reise S.P. Item response theory for psychologists 2000, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
8. Fan J., Wong C.C., Carroll S.A., Lopez F.J. An empirical investigation of the influence of social desirability on the factor structure of the Chinese 16PF. Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 45:790-795.
9. Ferrando P.J. The impact of social desirability bias on the EPQ-R item scores: An item response theory analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 44:1784-1794.
10. Fischer G.H., Kisser R. Notes on the exponential latency model and an empirical application. Principles of modern psychological measurement 1983, 139-157. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. H. Wainer, S. Messick (Eds.).
11. Frei, R.L., Griffith, R.L., Snell, A.F., McDaniel, M.A., & Douglas, E.F. (1997, April). Faking on noncognitive measures: Factor invariance usingmultiple groups. In G. Alliger (Chair), Faking matters. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
12. Griffin B., Hesketh B., Grayson D. Applicants faking good: Evidence of item bias in the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 36:1545-1558.
13. Großmann, S. (2004). Wer ist gefährlich? Eine empirische Untersuchung zu Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Diagnose der Eignung zum Umgang mit Schusswaffen [Who is dangerous? An empirical study on the possibilities and limitations on assessing respondents' fitness to handle weapons]. Unpublished diploma thesis, Justus Liebig University, Gießen, Germany.
14. Henry M.S., Raju N.S. The effects of traited and situational impression management on a personality test: An empirical analysis. Psychology Science 2006, 48:247-267.
15. Hergovich A., Arendasy M., Sommer M., Bognar B. The Vienna Risk-Taking Test - Traffic: A new measure of road traffic risk-taking. Journal of Individual Differences 2007, 28:198-204.
16. Hergovich A., Bognar B., Arendasy M., Sommer M. Manual Vienna Risk-Taking Test - Traffic (WRBTV) 2005, Schuhfried, Mödling.
17. Holden R.R., Book A.S. Using hybrid Rasch-latent class modeling to improve the detection of fakers on a personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 2009, 47:185-190.
18. Iversen H., Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 2002, 33:1251-1263.
19. König C.J., Melchers K.G., Kleinmann M., Richter G.M., Klehe U-Ch. Candidates' ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structures interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2007, 15:283-292.
20. Kroj G. Psychologisches Gutachten Kraftfahreignung [Traffic psychological assessment] 1995, Deutscher Psychologen Verlag, Bonn.
21. Mahar D., Coburn B., Griffin N., Hemeter F., Potappel C., Turton M., Mulgrew K. Stereotyping as a response strategy when faking personality questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences 2006, 40:1375-1386.
22. Marcus B. " Faking" from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2009, 17:417-430.
23. Martin B.A., Bowen C.C., Hunt S.T. How effective are people at faking personality questionnaires?. Personality and Individual Differences 2002, 32:971-990.
24. Masters G.G. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982, 47:149-174.
25. McFarland L.A., Ryan A.M. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, 85:812-821.
26. Mueller-Hanson R., Heggestad E.D., Thornton G.C. Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking. Psychology Science 2006, 3:288-312.
27. Oltead S., Rundmo T. The effect of personality and gender on risky driving behavior and accident involvement. Safety Science 2006, 44:621-628.
28. Ortner T., Proyer R., Kubinger K.D. Theorie und Praxis Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests [Theory and practice of objective personality tests] 2006, Huber, Bern.
29. Penfield R.D., Camilli G. Differential item functioning and item bias. Handbook of statistics, Vol. 26: Psychometrics 2007, 125-167. Elsevier, North Holland. C.R. Rao, S. Sinharay (Eds.).
30. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests 1980, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
31. Risser R. Validity of driver's diagnostics and selection. Assessing the driver 1997, 89-101. Rot-Gelb-Grün, Braunschweig. R. Risser (Ed.).
32. Robie C., Brown D.J., Beaty J.C. Do people fake on personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology 2007, 21:489-509.
33. Robie C., Zickar M.J., Schmit M.J. Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales. Human Performance 2001, 14:187-207.
34. Rossé J.G., Stecher M.D., Miller J.L., Levin R.A. Impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998, 83:634-644.
35. Scheiblechner H. Psychometric models for speed-test construction: The linear exponential model. Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics 1985, 219-244. Academic Press, New York. S.E. Embretson (Ed.).
36. Schuhfried G. Manual Expert System Traffic (XPSV) 2005, Schuhfried, Mödling.
37. Snell A.F., Fluckinger C.D. Understanding responses to personality selection measures: A conditional model of applicant reasoning process. A closer examination of applicant faking behavior 2006, 178-208. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. R.L. Griffith, D. Svyantek (Eds.).
38. Sommer M., Herle M., Häusler J., Risser R., Schützhofer B., Chaloupka Ch. Cognitive and personality determinants of safe driving behavior. Transportation Research Part F 2008, 11:362-375.
39. Stark S., Chernyshenko O.S., Chan K.Y., Lee W.C., Drasgow F. Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001, 86:943-953.
40. Turner C., MrClure R. Quantifying the role of risk-taking behavior in causation of serious road crash-related injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2004, 36:383-389.
41. Vogel K. A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2003, 35:427-433.
42. Wilde G.J.S. Target risk. Dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions 1994, PDE Publications, Toronto.
43. Zickar M.J., Drasgow F. Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement 1996, 20:71-87.
44. Zickar M.J., Gibby R.E. A history of faking and socially desirable responding on personality test. A closer examination of applicant faking behavior 2006, 21-42. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. R.L. Griffith, D. Svyantek (Eds.).
45. Zickar M.J., Gibby R.E., Robie C. Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods 2004, 7:168-190.
46. Ziegler M., Bühner M. Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2009, 69:548-565.
47. Ziegler M., Schmidt-Atzert L., Bühner M., Krumm S. Fakability of different measurement methods for achievement motivation: Questionnaire, semiprojective, and objective. Psychology Science 2007, 49:291-307.