Most research on faking personality inventories has assumed that individuals are either faking or responding honestly; distinctions within these two groups are generally not made. A recently developed statistical technique, mixed-model item response theory, was used to identify subgroups within samples of individuals taking two different personality inventories under various conditions. For one personality test, the authors obtained a sample of applicants and incumbents. For the second test, a sample of honest respondents and two samples of respondents instructed to fake (coached and ad lib) were obtained. Across the applicant and incumbent data sets, the authors generally found that three classes were needed to model all response patterns. In the experimental faking study, an honest class and an extreme faking class were needed to model the data. Overall, these results demonstrate that previous assumptions about the nature of faking on personality inventories have been too restrictive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bond, T. G., &Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
2.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection for Akaike’s information criterion . Psychometrika, 53, 345-370 .
3.
Drasgow, F., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Item response theory. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 577-636). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press .
4.
Eid, M., &Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys . European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 20-30 .
5.
Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., &Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure . Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133 .
6.
Everitt, B. S., &Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distributions. London: Chapman and Hall .
7.
Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in personality . Psychological Review, 92, 317-349 .
8.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
9.
Gumpel, T. P. (1999). Use of item response theory to develop a measure of first-grade readiness . Psychology in the Schools, 36, 285-293 .
10.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century . Medical Care, 38, 28-42 .
11.
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality . In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55-89 ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
12.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big-Five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction . Human Performance, 5, 139-155 .
13.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., &Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
14.
Levin, R. A, & Zickar, M. J. (2002). Investigating self-presentation, lies, and bullshit: Under-standing faking and its effects on hiring decisions using theory, field research, and simulation. In F. Drasgow &J. Brett (Eds.), The new millennium of work (pp. 253-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
15.
Masters, G. N. (1982). ARasch model for partial credit scoring . Psychometrika, 47, 149-174 .
16.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures . Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821 .
17.
Miller, M. L., & Thayer, J. F. (1989). On the existence of discrete classes in personality: Is self-monitoring the correct joint to carve? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 143-155 .
18.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583 .
19.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609 .
20.
Personnel Decisions International. (1997). Selection systems test scale manual. Unpublished document. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
21.
Reise, S. P. (1999). Personality measurement issues viewed through the eyes of IRT. In S. E. Embretson &S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The newrules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know (pp. 219-241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
22.
Reise, S. P., & Gomel, J. N. (1995). Modeling qualitative variation within latent trait dimensions: Application of mixed-measurement to personality assessment . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 341-358 .
23.
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 .
24.
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 .
25.
Rost, J. (1991). Alogistic mixture distribution model for polychotomous item responses . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 75-92 .
26.
Rost, J. (1997). Logistic mixture models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 449-463). New York: Springer .
27.
Rost, J., Carstensen, C. H., & von Davier, M. (1997). Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. In J. Rost & R. Langeheine (Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences (pp. 324-332). New York: Waxmann .
28.
Rost, J., & von Davier, M. (1994). A conditional item fit index for Rasch models . Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 171-182 .
29.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph No. 17.
30.
Schmit, M. J., Kihm, J. A., &Robie, C. (2000). Development of a global measure of personality . Personnel Psychology, 53, 153-193 .
31.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210 .
32.
von Davier, M. V., & Rost, J. (1995). WINMIRA: Windows mixed Rasch model analysis [Computer software]. Kiel, the Netherlands: Institute for Science Education .
33.
White, L. A., Nord, R. D., Mael, F. A., & Young, M. C. (1993). The Assessment of Background and Life Experiences (ABLE). In T. Trent & J. H. Laurence (Eds.), Adaptability screening for the armed forces (pp. 101-162). Washington, DC: Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel).
34.
Young, M. C., White, L. A., & Oppler, S. H. (1991, October). Coaching effects on the Assessment of Background and Life Experience (ABLE) . Paper presented at the meeting of the Military Testing Association, Dallas, TX.
35.
Zickar, M. J. (1998). Modeling item-level data with item response theory . Current Directions in Psychology, 7, 104-109 .
36.
Zickar, M. J. (2000). Modeling faking on personality tests. In D. Ilgen & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations (pp. 95-108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
37.
Zickar, M. J. (2001). Conquering the next frontier: Modeling personality data with item response theory. In B. Roberts &R. Hogan (Eds.), Applied personality psychology: The intersection of personality and I/O psychology (pp. 141-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
38.
Zickar, M. J., & Burnfield, J. L. (2003). A Monte Carlo investigation of the polytomous mixed Rasch model. Unpublished manuscript.
39.
Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551-563 .
40.
Zickar, M. J., Rosse, J., Levin, R. (1996, May). Modeling of faking in a selection context. In C. L. Hulin (Chair), The third scientific discipline: Computational modeling in organizational research. Meeting of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA .
41.
Zickar, M. J., &Ury, K. L. (2002). Developing an interpretation of item parameters for personality items: Content correlates of parameter estimates . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 19-31 .
