Less Evaluative Measures of Personality in Job Applicant Contexts: The Effect on Socially Desirable Responding and Criterion Validity

References

• Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglim, J., Bozic, S., Little, J., & Lievens, F. (2018). Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: Comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 23(2), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9796-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglim, J., Lievens, F., Everton, L., Grant, S. L., & Marty, A. (2018). HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-stakes and job applicant contexts. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglim, J., Morse, G., De Vries, R. E., MacCann, C., & Marty, A. (2017). Comparing job applicants to non-applicants using an item-level bifactor model on the HEXACO personality inventory. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2020). The properties and utility of less evaluative personality scales: Reduction of social desirability; increase of construct and discriminant validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 560271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2014). Criterion validity is maintained when items are evaluatively neutralized: Evidence from a full-scale Five-Factor Model inventory. European Journal of Personality, 28(6), 620–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00599.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., Mount, M., & Judge, T. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00386.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartram, D., Brown, A., Fleck, S., Inceoglu, I., & Ward, K. (2006). OPQ technical manual. SHL Group.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18(3), 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1803_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01581.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Cucina, J. M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Su, C., Busciglio, H. H., Cozma, I., DeCostanza, A. H., Martin, N. R., & Shaw, M. N. (2019). The effects of empirical keying of personality measures on faking and criterion-related validity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9544-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2014). Underreporting on the MMPI–2–RF in a high-demand police officer selection context: An illustration. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 1044–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodaj, A. (2012). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing a content and response-style model of socially desirable responding. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.462
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996). The validity of non-cognitive measures decays when applicants fake. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1996(1), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1996.4979062
   Google Scholar
• Dubinsky, S., Gamble, D. J., & Rogers, M. L. (1985). A literature review of subtle-obvious items on the MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, P. D., Bourdage, J. S., de Vries, R. E., McNeill, I. M., Jorritsma, K., Orchard, M., Austen, T., Baines, T., & Choe, W.-K. (2020). Liar! Liar!(when stakes are higher): Understanding how the overclaiming technique can be used to measure faking in personnel selection. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, P., McNeill, I., & Jorritsma, K. (2016). Tailoring the overclaiming technique to capture faking behaviour in applied settings: A field study of firefighter applicants. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 792–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, G. R. (1966). Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 488–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gynther, M. D., Burkhart, B. R., & Hovanitz, C. (1979). Do face-valid items have more predictive validity than subtle items? The case of the MMPI Pd scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(2), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.47.2.295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooper, A. C. (2007). Self-presentation on personality measures in lab and field settings: A meta-analysis [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Publication No. 0549114467).
   Google Scholar
• Hough, L. M. (1997). Personality at work: Issue and evidence. In M. D. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 131–166). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, J., & Connelly, B. S. (2021). Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subjects studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, Y. R., Christiansen, N. D., Robie, C., Kung, M. C., & Kinney, T. B. (2017). Comparing applicants and incumbents: Effects of response distortion on mean scores and validity of personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(3), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. E., Wood, R., & Blinkhorn, S. F. (1988). Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00279.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C. (2013). Probing item social desirability by correlating personality items with Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A validity examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klehe, U., 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 812–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., Pappalardo, G., Braddy, P. W., & Fleenor, J. W. (2020). Rapid Response Measurement: Development of a faking-resistant assessment method for personality. Organizational Research Methods, 23(1), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118795295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007a). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 1029–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007b). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, V., Lee, P., Ho, M.-H R., Kuykendall, L., Stark, S., & Tay, L. (2021). The development and validation of a multidimensional forced-choice format character measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1739056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005). Cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of self-presentation predict faking on personality measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.26.4.194
   Google Scholar
• Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025230
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raymark, P. H., & Tafero, T. L. (2009). Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Human Performance, 22(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280802541039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, R. M., Tarescavage, A. M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Roberts, M. D. (2019). Predicting postprobationary job performance of police officers using CPI and MMPI–2–RF test data obtained during preemployment psychological screening. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1423990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Salgado, J. F. (2016). A theoretical model of psychometric effects of faking on assessment procedures: Empirical findings and implications for personality at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salgado, J. F., & Tauriz, G. (2014). The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saville, P., & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1991.tb00556.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilling, M., Sparfeldt, J. R., Becker, N., Engel, M., Levacher, J., Sebastian, T. F. P., Schäfer, J., Schwabe, S., & König, C. J. (2020). Is it enough to be willing to win or do you have to be smart? The relationship between competitive worldviews, cognitive abilities, and applicant faking in personality tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellbom, M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021). Examining the validity of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire in the assessment of police candidates. Assessment, 28(1), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119887443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 985–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoss, M. K., & Strube, M. J. (2011). How do you fake a personality test? An investigation of cognitive models of impression-managed responding. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 967–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., Freund, K. A., Christiansen, N. D., Fox, K. E., & Coaster, J. (2012). Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job type. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (2006). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00696.x
   Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., & Simonet, D. V. (2021). Applicant faking on personality tests: Good or bad and why should we care? Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 7(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2021.01.002
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989). Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(4), 495–524. https://doi.org/10.1086/269169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weed, N. C., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1990). Failure of Wiener and Harmon Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subtle scales as personality descriptors and as validity indicators. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(3), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.2.3.281
   Google Scholar
• Whitman, M. R., Tylicki, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021). Utility of the MMPI-3 validity scales for detecting overreporting and underreporting and their effects on substantive scale validity: A simulation study. Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widhiarso, W., Steyer, R., & Ravand, H. (2019). Exploring a proactive measure of making items of a personality questionnaire resistant to faking: An employee selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, D. N. (1948). Subtle and obvious keys for the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12(3), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055594
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood, J. K., Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2021). 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, J. K., Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2022). Effect of job applicant faking and cognitive ability on self-other agreement and criterion validity of personality assessments. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 30(3), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worthington, D. L., & Schlottmann, R. S. (1986). The predictive validity of subtle and obvious empirically derived psychological test items under faking conditions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5002_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, M., & Buehner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408324469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar