When does random responding distort self-report personality assessment? An example with the NEO PI-R

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 15-20

  Holden, Ronald R ^a   Wheeler, Sarah ^a   Marjanovic, Zdravko ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

NEO PI R; Random responding; Self report personality; Validity moderating

Indexed keywords

EID: 82455179424     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.021     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions 1991, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
2. Ben-Porath Y.S., Waller N.G. "Normal" personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and the potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment 1992, 4:14-19.
3. Ben-Porath Y.S., Waller N.G. Five big issues in clinical personality assessment: A rejoinder to Costa and McCrae. Psychological Assessment 1992, 4:23-25.
4. Borkenau P., Ostendorf F. Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables. European Journal of Personality 1992, 6:199-214.
5. Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. NEO PI/FFI manual supplement 1989, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
6. Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual 1992, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
7. Holden R.R. Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and non-experimental contexts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 2007, 39:184-201.
8. Holden R.R., Book A.S. Faking does distort self-report personality assessment. New perspectives on faking in personality assessment 2012, 71-84. Oxford University Press, New York. M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, R.D. Roberts (Eds.).
9. Holden R.R., Passey J. Social desirability. Handbook of individual differences in social behavior 2009, 441-454. Guilford Press, New York. M.R. Leary, R.H. Hoyle (Eds.).
10. Holden R.R., Passey J. Socially desirable responding: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences 2010, 49:446-450.
11. Hough L.M., Eaton N.K., Dunnette M.D., Kamp J.D., McCloy R.A. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology 1990, 75:581-595.
12. Kurtz J.E., Tarquini S.J., Iobst E.A. Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Still more substance than style. Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 45:22-27.
13. Kyllonen P.C. The research behind the ETS Personal Potential Index (PPI) 2008, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
14. Landers R.N., Sackett P.R., Tuzinski K.A. Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection. Journal of Applied Psychology 2011, 96:202-210.
15. McClelland G.H., Judd C.M. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin 1993, 114:376-390.
16. McCrae R.R., Costa P.T. NEO inventories: Professional manual 2010, Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz, FL.
17. McGrath R.E., Mitchell M., Kim B.H., Hough L. Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment. Psychological Bulletin 2010, 136:450-470.
18. Morgeson F.P., Campion M.A., Dipboye R.L., Hollenbeck J.R., Murphy K., Schmitt N. Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology 2007, 60:683-729.
19. Piedmont R.L., McCrae R.R., Riemann R., Angleitner A. On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, 78:582-593.
20. Putka D.J., McCloy R.A. Preliminary AIM validation based on GED Plus program data. Understanding and improving the Assessment of Individual Motivation (AIM) in the Army's GED Plus program (pp. 3-19-3-30). (Study Note 2004-03.) Alexandria, VA: U.S 2004, Army Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. D.J. Knapp, E.D. Heggestad, M.C. Young (Eds.).
21. Schinka J.A., Kinder B.N., Kremer T. Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment 1997, 68:127-138.
22. Uziel L. Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2010, 5:243-262.
23. White L.A., Young M.C., Rumsey M.G. ABLE implementation issues and related research. Exploring the limits of personnel selection and classification 2001, 525-558. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J.P. Campbell, D.J. Knapp (Eds.).