The study investigated motivational distortion on five factors (A, C, E, H, and O) of the 16 PF by 50 undergraduates in job applicants' roles. Ss were able to distort significantly in their favor these factors and five additional ones (G, L, Q2, Q3 and Q4). The results suggest caution in using the 16 PF in personnel selection.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraunJ. R.LaFaroD.Fakability of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Form C. Journal of Psychology, 1968, 68, 3–7.
2.
BraunJ. R.LaFaroD.Faking and faking detection on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Form A. Journal of Psychology, 1969, 71, 155–158.
3.
BraunJ. R.LaFaroD.A further study of the fakability of the Personal Orientation Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, 296–299.
4.
CattellR. B.EberH. W.TatsuokaM. M.Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1970.
5.
MeredithG. M.Stereotypic desirability profiles for the 16 PF Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 1173–1174.
6.
OrpenC.The fakability of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 1–4.
7.
SchwabD. P.PackardG. 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.
