Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alliger, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Dwight, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

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

George M. Alliger

The Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.george.alliger{at}groupoe.com.

Stephen A. Dwight

Aon Consulting

Although it has been consistently found that test takers can effectively fake good on self-report noncognitive measures when instructed to do so, not all measures are equally susceptible. The present review meta-analytically synthesized studies that have investigated the extent to which individuals can inflate their integrity test scores when coached or instructed to fake good. Both overt and personality-based integrity tests were investigated. Results indicated that the overt test was especially susceptible to both fake good (d = 0.90) and coaching (d = 1.32) instructions. Personality-based measures appeared to be more resistant to both faking good (d = 0.38) and coaching (d = 0.36). Implications of these results for integrity testing are discussed.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, No. 1, 59-72 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/00131640021970367
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
A. R. Hakstian and E.-L. Ng
Employment-Related Motivational Distortion: Its Nature, Measurement, and Reduction
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2005; 65(3): 405 - 441.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
H. Peeters and F. Lievens
Situational Judgment Tests and their Predictiveness of College Students' Success: The Influence of Faking
Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2005; 65(1): 70 - 89.
[Abstract] [PDF]