Assessment order and faking behavior

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT International Journal of Selection and Assessment Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12496
Brett L. Wallace, Gary N. Burns
{"title":"Assessment order and faking behavior","authors":"Brett L. Wallace, Gary N. Burns","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Personality testing is a critical component of organizational assessment and selection processes. Despite nearly a century of research recognizing faking as a concern in personality assessment, the impact of order effects on faking has not been thoroughly examined. This study investigates whether the sequence of administering personality and cognitive ability measures affects the extent of faking. Previous research suggests administering personality measures early in the assessment process to mitigate adverse impact; however, models of faking behavior and signaling theory imply that test order could influence faking. In two simulated applicant laboratory studies (Study 1 <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 172, Study 2 <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 174), participants were randomly assigned to complete personality measures either before or after cognitive ability tests. Results indicate that participants who completed personality assessments first exhibited significantly higher levels of faking compared to those who took cognitive ability tests first. These findings suggest that the order of test administration influences faking, potentially due to the expenditure of cognitive resources during cognitive ability assessments. To enhance the integrity of selection procedures, administrators should consider the sequence of test administration to mitigate faking and improve the accuracy of personality assessments. This study also underscores the need for continued exploration of contextual factors influencing faking behavior. Future research should investigate the mechanisms driving these order effects and develop strategies to reduce faking in personality assessments.","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12496","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Personality testing is a critical component of organizational assessment and selection processes. Despite nearly a century of research recognizing faking as a concern in personality assessment, the impact of order effects on faking has not been thoroughly examined. This study investigates whether the sequence of administering personality and cognitive ability measures affects the extent of faking. Previous research suggests administering personality measures early in the assessment process to mitigate adverse impact; however, models of faking behavior and signaling theory imply that test order could influence faking. In two simulated applicant laboratory studies (Study 1 N = 172, Study 2 N = 174), participants were randomly assigned to complete personality measures either before or after cognitive ability tests. Results indicate that participants who completed personality assessments first exhibited significantly higher levels of faking compared to those who took cognitive ability tests first. These findings suggest that the order of test administration influences faking, potentially due to the expenditure of cognitive resources during cognitive ability assessments. To enhance the integrity of selection procedures, administrators should consider the sequence of test administration to mitigate faking and improve the accuracy of personality assessments. This study also underscores the need for continued exploration of contextual factors influencing faking behavior. Future research should investigate the mechanisms driving these order effects and develop strategies to reduce faking in personality assessments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估顺序和伪装行为
人格测试是组织评估和选拔过程的重要组成部分。尽管近一个世纪以来的研究已经认识到,在人格测评中作假是一个令人担忧的问题,但顺序效应对作假的影响尚未得到深入研究。本研究调查了实施人格测量和认知能力测量的顺序是否会影响造假的程度。以往的研究建议在测评过程的早期进行人格测评,以减轻不利影响;然而,造假行为模型和信号理论暗示,测试顺序可能会影响造假行为。在两项模拟申请人实验室研究(研究 1 N = 172,研究 2 N = 174)中,参与者被随机分配在认知能力测试之前或之后完成人格测评。结果表明,与先进行认知能力测试的受试者相比,先完成人格测评的受试者表现出明显更高的作假水平。这些研究结果表明,施测顺序会影响造假,这可能是由于认知能力测评过程中消耗了认知资源。为了提高选拔程序的公正性,管理者应考虑施测顺序,以减少作假现象,提高人格测评的准确性。本研究还强调了继续探索影响造假行为的背景因素的必要性。未来的研究应该调查这些顺序效应的驱动机制,并制定策略来减少人格测评中的作假行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
期刊最新文献
Sourcing algorithms: Rethinking fairness in hiring in the era of algorithmic recruitment Issue Information Exploring the role of cognitive load in faking prevention using the dual task paradigm Personality development goals at work: Would a new assessment tool help? Reality or illusion: A qualitative study on interviewer job previews and applicant self‐presentation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1