Past practice of operationalizing the concept of fakeability is reviewed. The strengths and weaknesses of these indices (mean difference, percent overlap, percent agreement, correlation, and variance of difference scores) are discussed in the light of a proposed new definition of fakeability based upon Naylor's (1967) model of measurement accuracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrahams, N. M., Neumann, I., and Githens, W. H.Faking vocational interests: Simulated versus real life motivation. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 5-12.
2.
Becker, J. A.Interest pattern faking by female job applicants. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1963, 1, 51-54.
3.
Behar, M. F.The "accuracy" and other measuring properties of temperature instruments. Instruments, 1940, 13, 240-242.
4.
Braun, J. R.Effects of a top management faking set on the Gordon Personal Inventory. Psychological Reports , 1962a, 10, 611-614.
5.
Braun, J. R.Differential susceptibility to faking of various Ghiselli Self-Description Inventory scales. Psychological Reports, 1962b, 10, 639-641.
6.
Dicken, C. F.Simulated patterns on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 1960, 7, 24-31.
7.
Edwards, A. L.The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970.
8.
Edwards, A. L.The social desirability variable in personality research. New York: Dryden, 1957.
9.
Gendreau, P., Irvine, M. , and Knight, S.Evaluating response set styles with prisoners: Faking good adjustment and maladjustment . Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1973, 5, 183-194.
10.
Gordon, M. E.The effect of the correctness of the behavior observed on the accuracy of ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 366-377.
11.
Gordon, M. E. and Petty, M. M.A note on the effectiveness of research conditions in reducing the magnitude of dissimulation on a self-report criterion. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 53-61.
12.
Gough, H. G.Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1957.
13.
Guion, R. M.Personnel Testing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
14.
Hathaway, S. R. and McKinley, J. C.Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: Manual . New York: Psychological Corporation , 1951.
15.
Mach, E.The economical nature of physical inquiry. In J. J. Kockelmans (Ed.), Philosophy of science: The historical background. New York: The Free Press, 1968.
16.
Maher, H.Studies of transparency in forced-choice scales: I. Evidence of transparency. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1959, 43, 275-278.
17.
Megargee, E. I.The California Psychological Inventory Handbook. San Francisco, Cal.: Josey-Bass, Inc., 1972, 127-155.
18.
Naylor, J. C.Some comments on the accuracy and the validity of a cue variable. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 154-161.
19.
Orpen, C.The fakeability of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology , 1971, 24, 1-4.
20.
Orvik, J. M.Social desirability for the individual, his group, and society. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 1972, 7, 3-32.
21.
Schutter, G., and Maher, H.Predicting grade-point average with a forced-choice study activity questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1956, 40, 253-257.
22.
Schwab, D. P. and Packard, G. L.Response distortion on the Gordon Personal Inventory and the Gordon Personal Profile in a selection context: Some implications for predicting employee tenure. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1973, 58, 372-374.
23.
Stollak, G. E.EPPS performance under social desirability instructions : College females. Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 119-122.
24.
Tilton, J. W.The measurement of overlapping . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1937 , 28, 656-662.
