Using the multidimensional nominal response model to model faking in questionnaire data: The importance of item desirability characteristics.
Faking
Item desirability
Multidimensional item response theory
Psychological assessment
Psychometrics
Journal
Behavior research methods
ISSN: 1554-3528
Titre abrégé: Behav Res Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101244316
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Sep 2024
20 Sep 2024
Historique:
accepted:
26
08
2024
medline:
21
9
2024
pubmed:
21
9
2024
entrez:
20
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Faking in self-report personality questionnaires describes a deliberate response distortion aimed at presenting oneself in an overly favorable manner. Unless the influence of faking on item responses is taken into account, faking can harm multiple psychometric properties of a test. In the present article, we account for faking using an extension of the multidimensional nominal response model (MNRM), which is an item response theory (IRT) model that offers a flexible framework for modeling different kinds of response biases. Particularly, we investigated under which circumstances the MNRM can adequately adjust substantive trait scores and latent correlations for the influence of faking and examined the role of variation in the way item content is related to social desirability (i.e., item desirability characteristics) in facilitating the modeling of faking and counteracting its detrimental effects. Using a simulation, we found that the inclusion of a faking dimension in the model can overall improve the recovery of substantive trait person parameters and latent correlations between substantive traits, especially when the impact of faking in the data is high. Item desirability characteristics moderated the effect of modeling faking and were themselves associated with different levels of parameter recovery. In an empirical demonstration with N = 1070 test-takers, we also showed that the faking modeling approach in combination with different item desirability characteristics can prove successful in empirical questionnaire data. We end the article with a discussion of implications for psychological assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39304600
doi: 10.3758/s13428-024-02509-x
pii: 10.3758/s13428-024-02509-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : GRK 2277
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307
pubmed: 17279851
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., Maddux, R. E., & Lindén, M. (2023). The NB5I: A full-scale Big-Five inventory with evaluatively neutralized items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 39(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000687
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000687
Baron, H., Gibbons, P., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G. (2000). Conscientiousness and managerial performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900166967
doi: 10.1348/096317900166967
Bing, M. N., Kluemper, D., Kristl Davison, H., Taylor, S., & Novicevic, M. (2011). Overclaiming as a measure of faking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.006
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.006
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(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291411
doi: 10.1007/bf02291411
Böckenholt, U. (2014). Modeling motivated misreports to sensitive survey questions. Psychometrika, 79(3), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9390-9
doi: 10.1007/s11336-013-9390-9
pubmed: 24297438
Bolt, D. M., & Newton, J. R. (2011). Multiscale measurement of extreme response style. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(5), 814–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410388411
doi: 10.1177/0013164410388411
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Descriptive consistency and social desirability in self- and peer reports. European Journal of Personality, 3(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410030105
doi: 10.1002/per.2410030105
Brown, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2022). Intermittent faking of personality profiles in high-stakes assessments: A grade of membership analysis. Psychological Methods, 27(5), 895–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000295
doi: 10.1037/met0000295
pubmed: 35007104
Cai, L. (2010). Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro algorithm for confirmatory item factor analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(3), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609353115
doi: 10.3102/1076998609353115
Cai, L., & Monroe, S. (2013). IRT model fit evaluation from theory to practice: Progress and some unanswered questions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 11(3), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2013.835172
doi: 10.1080/15366367.2013.835172
Cai, L., & Monroe, S. (2014). A new statistic for evaluating item response theory models for ordinal data (CRESST Report 839). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California.
Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
doi: 10.1037/apl0000414
pubmed: 31070382
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i06
Chalmers, R. P., & Adkins, M. C. (2020). Writing effective and reliable Monte Carlo simulations with the SimDesign package. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 248–280. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p248
doi: 10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p248
Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Lechner, C., Berres, S., Knopf, T., Soto, C., & John, O. P. (2016). Die deutsche Version des Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2) [The German version of the Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2)]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS) [Compilation of items and scales for the social sciences (ZIS)]. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis247
Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Lechner, C., Berres, S., Knopf, T., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2019). Das Big Five Inventar 2: Validierung eines Persönlichkeitsinventars zur Erfassung von 5 Persönlichkeitsdomänen und 15 Facetten [The Big Five Inventory 2: Validation of a personality inventory for measuring 5 personality domains 15 facets]. Diagnostica, 65(3), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000218
doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000218
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.344
doi: 10.1002/job.344
de Vries, R. E., Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 21(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113504619
doi: 10.1177/1073191113504619
pubmed: 24072594
Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_4
doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_4
Ellingson, J. E., & McFarland, L. A. (2011). Understanding faking behavior through the lens of motivation: An application of VIE theory. Human Performance, 24(4), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597477
doi: 10.1080/08959285.2011.597477
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(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155
Falk, C. F., & Cai, L. (2016). A flexible full-information approach to the modeling of response styles. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000059
doi: 10.1037/met0000059
pubmed: 26641273
Falk, C. F., & Ju, U. (2020). Estimation of response styles using the multidimensional nominal response model: A tutorial and comparison with sum scores. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00072
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00072
pubmed: 32116902
pmcid: 7017717
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(4), 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00256.x
doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00256.x
Goldammer, P., Stöckli, P. L., Escher, Y. A., Annen, H., & Jonas, K. (2023). On the utility of indirect methods for detecting faking. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231209520 Advance online publication
Griffith, R. L., & Converse, P. D. (2011). The rules of evidence and the prevalence of applicant faking. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 34–52). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387476.003.0018
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387476.003.0018
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731310
doi: 10.1108/00483480710731310
Gummer, T., Roßmann, J., & Silber, H. (2021). Using instructed response items as attention checks in web surveys: Properties and implementation. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769083
doi: 10.1177/0049124118769083
Hakstian, A. R., & Ng, E.-L. (2005). Employment-related motivational distortion: Its nature, measurement, and reduction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(3), 405–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267293
doi: 10.1177/0013164404267293
Hendy, N., Krammer, G., Schermer, J. A., & Biderman, M. D. (2021). Using bifactor models to identify faking on Big Five questionnaires. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12316
doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12316
Henninger, M., & Meiser, T. (2020). Different approaches to modeling response styles in divide-by-total item response theory models (part 1): A model integration. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000249
doi: 10.1037/met0000249
pubmed: 33017166
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
Huang, Q., & Bolt, D. M. (2023). Unipolar IRT and the Author Recognition Test (ART). Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02275-2 . Advance online publication.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
pubmed: 12184579
Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 55–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12024
doi: 10.1111/apps.12024
Klehe, U.-C., Kleinmann, M., Hartstein, T., Melchers, K. G., König, C. J., Heslin, P. A., & Lievens, F. (2012). Responding to personality tests in a selection context: The role of the ability to identify criteria and the ideal-employee factor. Human Performance, 25(4), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.703733
doi: 10.1080/08959285.2012.703733
Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.140
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.140
pubmed: 18211141
König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’ self-presentational behavior across cultures: Less self-presentation in Switzerland and Iceland than in the United States. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x
König, C. J., Steiner Thommen, L. A., Wittwer, A., & Kleinmann, M. (2017). Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self-reports. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12171
doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12171
Kuncel, N. R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x
LaHuis, D. M., & Copeland, D. (2009). Investigating faking using a multilevel logistic regression approach to measuring person fit. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107302903
doi: 10.1177/1094428107302903
LaHuis, D. M., Blackmore, C. E., Bryant-Lees, K. B., & Delgado, K. (2019). Applying item response trees to personality data in the selection context. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118780310
doi: 10.1177/1094428118780310
Leiner, D. J. (2019). Too Fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods, 13(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2019.V13I3.7403
doi: 10.18148/SRM/2019.V13I3.7403
Leng, C. H., Huang, H. Y., & Yao, G. (2020). A social desirability item response theory model: Retrieve-deceive-transfer. Psychometrika, 85(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-019-09689-y
doi: 10.1007/s11336-019-09689-y
pubmed: 31677045
Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and self-deception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00339.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00339.x
Lucke, J. F. (2015). Unipolar item response models. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling (pp. 290–302). Routledge.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02296272
doi: 10.1007/bf02296272
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2014). Assessing approximate fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.911075
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.911075
pubmed: 26765800
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 882–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.51.6.882
doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.51.6.882
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
pubmed: 3820081
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 812–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
pubmed: 11055152
Merhof, V., Böhm, C. M., & Meiser, T. (2023). Separation of traits and extreme response style in IRTree models: The role of mimicry effects for the meaningful interpretation of Estimates. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231213319 . Advance online publication.
Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348
pubmed: 12731719
Müller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). True virtue, self-presentation, or both?: A behavioral test of impression management and overclaiming. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000657
doi: 10.1037/pas0000657
pubmed: 30299118
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169201600206
doi: 10.1177/014662169201600206
Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
pubmed: 14664681
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Erlbaum.
Paunonen, S. V., & LeBel, E. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028165
doi: 10.1037/a0028165
pubmed: 22564012
Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4, Pt. 2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025230
Peabody, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(2), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.384
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.384
Pettersson, E., Turkheimer, E., Horn, E. E., & Menatti, A. R. (2012). The general factor of personality and evaluation. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.839
doi: 10.1002/per.839
Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.141
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.141
pubmed: 8126644
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 966–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966
Seitz, T., Spengler, M., & Meiser, T. (2023, September 29). “What if applicants fake their responses?”: Modeling faking in high-stakes in personality assessments using the multidimensional nominal response model. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/j5mze
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2023). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (version 1.3-0) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/afex/index.html
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096
pubmed: 27055049
Sun, T., Zhang, B., Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2022). Faking detection improved: Adopting a Likert item response process tree model. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 490–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904
doi: 10.1177/10944281211002904
Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294363
doi: 10.1007/bf02294363
Thissen, D., & Cai, L. (2016). Nominal categories models. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory, Volume One: Models (pp. 51–73). Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51(4), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295596
doi: 10.1007/BF02295596
Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (2001). Test scoring. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781410604729/test-scoring-david-thissen-howard-wainer
van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003
Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds021
doi: 10.1093/ijpor/eds021
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). Springer.
doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802
doi: 10.1177/00131649921969802
Wetzel, E., & Carstensen, C. H. (2017). Multidimensional modeling of traits and response styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000291
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000291
Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714
doi: 10.1177/1073191115583714
pubmed: 25986062
Wood, J. K., Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2022). A less evaluative measure of Big Five personality: Comparison of structure and criterion validity. European Journal of Personality, 36(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211012920
doi: 10.1177/08902070211012920
Wood, J. K., Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2023). Less evaluative measures of personality in job applicant contexts: The effect on socially desirable responding and criterion validity. Journal of Personality Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2251158 . Advance online publication
Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 168–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263674
doi: 10.1177/1094428104263674
Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408324469
doi: 10.1177/0013164408324469
Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387476.003.0011
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387476.003.0011
Ziegler, M., Maaß, U., Griffith, R., & Gammon, A. (2015). What is the nature of faking? Modeling distinct response patterns and quantitative differences in faking at the same time. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115574518
doi: 10.1177/1094428115574518