A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Susceptibility of Integrity Tests to Faking and Coaching

By George M. Alliger, Stephen A. Dwight. 2000

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91db3af52b5a00deeb802af2aa64657d46e006ed

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. D. Simonet
2. J. Levashina
3. James Friedrich
4. Gale M. Lucas
5. Michael A. Campion
6. John J. Donovan
7. R. Tett
8. T. Judge

In Clinical Psychology

1. J. Levashina
2. D. Simonet
3. Gale M. Lucas
4. James Friedrich
5. Michael A. Campion
6. T. Judge
7. Stephen A. Dwight
8. Jeffrey J. Walczyk

In Sociology and Political Science

1. J. Levashina
2. James Friedrich
3. Gale M. Lucas
4. Michael A. Campion
5. D. Simonet
6. John J. Donovan
7. R. Tett

Citations in the corpus

• Individual Differences in Workplace Deviance and Integrity as Predictors of Academic Dishonesty (2005, methodology): “The second integrity measure was the Employment Integrity Index (EII), a publicly available integrity measure developed for research purposes (Ryan & Sackett, 1987) and used extensively in studies on integrity testing (Alliger & Dwight, 2000).”
• Situational Judgment Tests and their Predictiveness of College Students’ Success: The Influence of Faking (2005, unknown): “Faking has especially been studied in non-cognitive-oriented measures, such as personality tests, biodata inventories, and integrity tests (Alliger & Dwight, 2000; Becker & Colquitt, 1992; Dalen, Stanton, & Roberts, 2001; Graham, McDaniel, Douglas, & Snell, 2002; Kluger & Collela, 1993; Martin,…”
• Faking in Personality Assessment: A “Multisaturation” Perspective on Faking as Performance (2011, background): “Subtle items, for example, are less fakable because they require greater ability to be identified as job relevant (Alliger & Dwight, 2000).”
• A Model of Faking Likelihood in the Employment Interview. (2006, methodology): “Meta-analysis by Alliger and Dwight (2000) suggests that the mean score differences between fake-good and honest conditions may be smaller for scales comprised of subtle items than obvious items.”
• Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research (2009, unknown): “Faking has been studied extensively in non-cognitive measures, such as personality tests, biodata inventories, and integrity tests (Alliger & Dwight, 2000; Douglas, McDaniel, & Snell, 1996; Graham, McDaniel, Douglas, & Snell, 2002; Kluger & Collela,1993; McFarland, Ryan, & Aleksander, 2002; Ones &…”
• Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception (2009, background): “However, there remain concerns regarding their predictive validity (Guastello and Rieke 1991), their potential for being confounded by situational variables (Berry et al. 2007) , and their susceptibility to faking (Ryan and Sackett 1987; Alliger and Dwight 2000 ).”
• An Assessment of the Prevalence, Severity, and Verifiability of Entry-Level Applicant Faking Using the Randomized Response Technique (2003, background): “…to faking, although there has been debate surrounding the interpretation of unlikely virtues and related social desirability scale scores as indicating pure faking as opposed to a construct of interest in itself (Alliger & Dwight, 2000; Edwards, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1983; Nicholson & Hogan, 1990).”