A Reliability Generalization Study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

By S. N. Beretvas, Jason L. Meyers, Walter L. Leite. 2002

271 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2616af8ab4b4bf120866199ed9d4ad50100577e

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

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Dealing with social desirability bias:an application to charitable giving (2011, background): “Much of the early literature assumes that it is uni-dimensional, but more recently authors have posited a two-factor (Paulhus, 1984;1991) and even a multi-dimensional model (Beretvas et al., 2002).”
Reliability among Senior Managers of the Marlowe–Crowne Short-Form Social Desirability Scale (2005, unknown): “Although the full-form Marlowe–Crowne Scale has demonstrated reasonable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .64–.88) among student samples (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972; Robinson & Shaver, 1973; Reynolds, 1982; Fraboni & Cooper, 1989), doubts remain about its unidimensionality, item relevance, generalizability”
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) (2007, background): “Following the recommendation of Henson and Thompson (2002) and other published works (Beretvas et al., 2002; Caruso, 2000; Kieffer & Reese, 2002; Shields & Caruso, 2003; VachaHaase, 1998), the sample characteristics of age, gender, sample type, nationality, sample size, and language were included in”
Psychometric Properties of the Social Desirability Scale-17 with Individuals on Probation and Parole in the United States (2014, methodology): “The MCSDS has been identified as the most frequently used tool in clinical and research settings for measuring social desirability (Beretvas et al., 2002).”
Validation of Scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (2005, background): “Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) searched the PsycINFO, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Sciences Abstracts databases for papers that had mentioned use of the MCSDS since 1960.”
Hiring Discrimination Against Arab Minorities: Interactions Between Prejudice and Job Characteristics (2009, result): “Overall, the internal consistencies of study variables were good in both the American and Dutch sample; internal consistencies of the social desirability scale were somewhat lower but in line with reported reliabilities in previous studies (eg, Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002 ).”
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16) (2015, background): “The most popular scale is the MCSDS (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), despite criticisms of its low reliability, outdated wording, and unidimensional factor structure (e.g., Beretvas et al., 2002).”
Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores: Implications for Research (2010, background): “desirability bias - the desire to revise a response before communicating it to a researcher to protect self-image or inaccurately project an image of academic performance (Beretvas et al. 2002; Nancarrow and Brace 2000; Dobbins et al. 1993; Shepperd 1993).”
Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context (2006, methodology): “Differences in SDR can occur between online and paper and pencil (e.g., Pettit, 2002), and between responding alone or in a group (e.g., Richman, Kiesler, Weisbad, & Drasgow, 1999).”