The Psychometric Costs of Applicants' Faking: Examining Measurement Invariance and Retest Correlations Across Response Conditions

References

• Arendasy, M., Sommer, M., & Feldhammer, M. (2011). Manual: Big Five Structure Inventory (BFSI). Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried.
   Google Scholar
• Barendse, M. T., Oort, F. J., & Garst, G. J. A. (2010). Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and nonuniform measurement bias: A simulation study. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94, 117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J., 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, 317–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluationfür Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and evaluation for the social sciences] (4th rev. ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, K. M., & Hauenstein, N. M. (2006). The moderating effects of sample type as evidence of the effects of faking on personality scale correlations and factor structure. Psychology Science, 48, 313–335.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo PI–R professional manual. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Curran, R. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. E. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Deller, J. (2006). Response distortion in personality measurement: Born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessments? Psychology Science, 48, 209–225.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 81–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16, 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 155–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fell, C. B., & König, C. J. (2016). Cross-cultural differences in applicant faking on personality tests: A 43-nation study. Applied Psychology, 65, 671–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2009a). Assessing the impact of faking on binary personality measures: An IRT-based multiple-group factor analytic procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 497–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2009b). The interpretation of the EPQ Lie scale scores under honest and faking instructions: A multiple-group IRT-based analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 552–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology, 50, 151–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffin, R. D., & Woods, D. M. (1995). Using personality testing for personnel selection: Faking and test‐taking inductions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3, 227–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, Y., & Roth, R. A. (1993). Teachers managing stress and preventing burnout: The professional health solution. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, B., & Wilson, I. G. (2012). Faking good: Self-enhancement in medical school applications. Medical Education, 46, 485–490.
   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, 341–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, R. L., & Peterson, M. H. (2011). One piece at a time: The puzzle of applicant faking and a call for theory. Human Performance, 24, 291–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman, N. S., & Grubb, W. L. (2011). Deliberate faking on personality and emotional intelligence measures. Psychological Reports, 108, 120–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270–1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, R. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 140–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, C. J., Merz, A.-S., & Trauffer, N. (2012). What is in applicants' minds when they fill out a personality test? Insights from a qualitative study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 442–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6, 151–162.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., & Neubauer, A. (2015, July). Emotional intelligence, personality and general mental ability in teacher student selection: An examination of predictive validity and overlap. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID) in London, ON, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Krammer, G., & Pflanzl, B. (2015). Faking von Persönlichkeitseigenschaften bei Zulassungsverfahren für Lehramtsstudien. [Faking of personality measures for college admission in teacher education.] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 29, 205–214.
   Google Scholar
• Krammer, G., Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2016). Realistic job expectations predict academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 341–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuncel, N. R., Goldberg, L. R., & Kiger, T. (2011). A plea for process in personality prevarication. Human Performance, 24, 373–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 201–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Impact of differential item functioning on subsequent statistical conclusions. Psicológica, 30, 343–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, R. L. (1968). Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validiation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 69–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, B. (2009). “Faking” from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 417–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cut off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu & Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr, J. (2011). Der Persönlichkeitsansatz der Lehrerforschung. [The personality approach to research in the field of teaching.] In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf [A research guide to the teaching profession] (pp. 125–148). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr, J., & Brandstätter, H. (1998). Lehrer/in werden? [Becoming a teacher?] Wien, Germany: Bundesministerium für Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten.
   Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B. K., & Ruggs, E. N. (2014). Measurement invariance tests of the impression management sub-scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 36–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mislevy, R. J., Haertel, G., Cheng, B. H., Ructtinger, L., DeBarger, A., Murray, E., … Vendlinski, T. (2013). A “conditional” sense of fairness in assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 19, 121–140.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2006). Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking. Psychology Science, 48, 288–312.
   Google Scholar
• Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D., & Camilli, G. (2007). Differential item functioning and item bias. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (pp. 125–167). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O'Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011). Applicant faking, social desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance, 24, 270–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G. A., & Li, C. H. (2012). Measurement invariance for latent constructs in multiple populations: A critical view and refocus. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 954–974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria: R Core Development Team. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Robie, C., Zickar, M. J., & Schmit, M. J. (2001). Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales. Human Performance, 14, 187–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, A. M., & Boyce, A. S. (2006). What do we know and where do we go? Practical directions for faking research. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 357–371). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 167–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt, U., & Fischer, A. (2013). Manual Inventar zur Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik in Situationen [Inventory for personality assessment in situations] (Version 21—Revision 2). Mödling, Austria: SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz-Kolland, R., Krammer, G., Rottensteiner, E., & Weitlaner, R. (2014). Die Validität von Zulassungsverfahren—Befunde der Pädagogischen Hochschule Steiermark. [On the validity of college admission processes—findings of the University College of Teacher Education Styria.] Neuen @Hochschul-Zeitung, 3, 85–88.
   Google Scholar
• Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 219–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., & Simonet, D. V. (2011). Faking in personality assessment: A “multisaturation” perspective on faking as performance. Human Performance, 24, 302–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unterbrink, T., Hack, A., Pfeifer, R., Buhl-Grießhaber, V., Müller, U., Wesche, H., … Bauer, J. (2007). Burnout and effort–reward imbalance in a sample of 949 German teachers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80, 433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
   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, 197–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkelspecht, C., Lewis, P., & Thomas, A. (2006). Potential effects of faking on the NEO PI–R: Willingness and ability to fake changes who gets hired in simulated selection decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 243–259.
   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, 551–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, M. (2011). Applicant faking: A look into the black box. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 29–36.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 548–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar