改进伪造检测:采用李克特项目反应过程树模型

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2021-04-15 DOI:10.1177/10944281211002904
Tianjun Sun, Bo Zhang, Mengyang Cao, F. Drasgow
{"title":"改进伪造检测:采用李克特项目反应过程树模型","authors":"Tianjun Sun, Bo Zhang, Mengyang Cao, F. Drasgow","doi":"10.1177/10944281211002904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the increasing popularity of noncognitive inventories in personnel selection, organizations typically wish to be able to tell when a job applicant purposefully manufactures a favorable impression. Past faking research has primarily focused on how to reduce faking via instrument design, warnings, and statistical corrections for faking. This article took a new approach by examining the effects of faking (experimentally manipulated and contextually driven) on response processes. We modified a recently introduced item response theory tree modeling procedure, the three-process model, to identify faking in two studies. Study 1 examined self-reported vocational interest assessment responses using an induced faking experimental design. Study 2 examined self-reported personality assessment responses when some people were in a high-stakes situation (i.e., selection). Across the two studies, individuals instructed or expected to fake were found to engage in more extreme responding. By identifying the underlying differences between fakers and honest respondents, the new approach improves our understanding of faking. Percentage cutoffs based on extreme responding produced a faker classification precision of 85% on average.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10944281211002904","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Faking Detection Improved: Adopting a Likert Item Response Process Tree Model\",\"authors\":\"Tianjun Sun, Bo Zhang, Mengyang Cao, F. Drasgow\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10944281211002904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the increasing popularity of noncognitive inventories in personnel selection, organizations typically wish to be able to tell when a job applicant purposefully manufactures a favorable impression. Past faking research has primarily focused on how to reduce faking via instrument design, warnings, and statistical corrections for faking. This article took a new approach by examining the effects of faking (experimentally manipulated and contextually driven) on response processes. We modified a recently introduced item response theory tree modeling procedure, the three-process model, to identify faking in two studies. Study 1 examined self-reported vocational interest assessment responses using an induced faking experimental design. Study 2 examined self-reported personality assessment responses when some people were in a high-stakes situation (i.e., selection). Across the two studies, individuals instructed or expected to fake were found to engage in more extreme responding. By identifying the underlying differences between fakers and honest respondents, the new approach improves our understanding of faking. Percentage cutoffs based on extreme responding produced a faker classification precision of 85% on average.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10944281211002904\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

随着非认知量表在人员选择中的日益普及,组织通常希望能够判断求职者何时有意制造一个良好的印象。过去的作假研究主要集中在如何通过仪器设计、警告和作假的统计校正来减少作假。本文采用了一种新的方法,通过研究作假(实验操纵和情境驱动)对反应过程的影响。我们修改了最近引入的项目反应理论树模型程序,即三过程模型,以在两项研究中识别虚假。研究1采用诱导伪造实验设计检验自我报告的职业兴趣评估反应。研究2检查了一些人在高风险情况下(即选择)自我报告的人格评估反应。在这两项研究中,被指示或被期望撒谎的人会做出更极端的反应。通过识别伪造者和诚实受访者之间的潜在差异,这种新方法提高了我们对伪造的理解。基于极端反应的百分比截断产生了平均85%的虚假分类精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Faking Detection Improved: Adopting a Likert Item Response Process Tree Model
With the increasing popularity of noncognitive inventories in personnel selection, organizations typically wish to be able to tell when a job applicant purposefully manufactures a favorable impression. Past faking research has primarily focused on how to reduce faking via instrument design, warnings, and statistical corrections for faking. This article took a new approach by examining the effects of faking (experimentally manipulated and contextually driven) on response processes. We modified a recently introduced item response theory tree modeling procedure, the three-process model, to identify faking in two studies. Study 1 examined self-reported vocational interest assessment responses using an induced faking experimental design. Study 2 examined self-reported personality assessment responses when some people were in a high-stakes situation (i.e., selection). Across the two studies, individuals instructed or expected to fake were found to engage in more extreme responding. By identifying the underlying differences between fakers and honest respondents, the new approach improves our understanding of faking. Percentage cutoffs based on extreme responding produced a faker classification precision of 85% on average.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties Enhancing Causal Pursuits in Organizational Science: Targeting the Effect of Treatment on the Treated in Research on Vulnerable Populations
×
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