A Theoretical Model of Psychometric Effects of Faking on Assessment Procedures: Empirical findings and implications for personality at work

Interviews are commonly used for selection but research on interview faking only gained momentum relatively recently. We review both theoretical and empirical work on prevalence, antecedents, processes, and effects of interview faking. Most applicants fake at least to some degree. Personality (e.g., Conscientiousness, Honestyhumility, the Dark Triad) and attitudes toward faking substantially correlate with faking behaviors. Research concerning applicants' ability, interview structure components, or contextual factors is limited. Furthermore, the impact of faking on interview ratings is mixed and effects on criterion-related validity are not consistently negative.Finally, the detection of faking seems hardly possible and there are limited options available to reduce interview faking. Throughout our review, we describe important gaps and derive suggestions and propositions for future research. K E Y W O R D Sfaking, impression management, personnel selection, selection interviews, socially desirable responding

Section: What Is Faking In Interviews?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Faking In Interviews?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of applicant faking in selection interviews

Melchers

Roulin

Buehl

2020

“…The former paradigm models faking as a change in item and option parameters, whereas the latter paradigm models faking as a change in the trait of a test taker. In regard to models for faking in non‐IRT contexts, Salgado () provided details about theoretical explanations of faking and the subsequent effects including a new psychometric model suggested based on a phenomenon of homogenization of scores which causes applicants to be more similar than they actually are.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In regard to models for faking in non-IRT contexts, Salgado (2016) provided details about theoretical explanations of faking and the subsequent effects including a new psychometric model suggested based on a phenomenon of homogenization of scores which causes applicants to be more similar than they actually are. Schmitt and Oswald (2006) conducted a simulation study to examine the impact of faking correction on the validity of noncognitive measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Faking under a nonlinear relationship between personality assessment scores and job performance

Lee

Smith

Geisinger

2017

This study investigated whether faking in personality assessments affects the prediction of job performance and consequences of selection decisions when a nonlinear relationship was assumed between personality scores and job performance. It was also examined whether a selection strategy suggested for nonlinear relationships reduces the adverse impact of faking on consequences of selection decisions. The findings from the item response theory‐based simulations indicated that the prediction of job performance was affected by faking, whereas selection accuracy was not substantially affected by faking. The improvement in selection accuracy due to the strategy suggested for a nonlinear relationship was not noticeable. However, the suggested strategy reduced adverse impacts of faking on the estimation of selected applicants' performance scores.

“…Applicants' faking of personality tests seems to be fairly common (e.g., Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006;Salgado, 2016) and thus worries many practitioners (e.g., Robie, Tuzinski, & Bly, 2006) because they and several researchers fear that it affects the predictive validity of personality tests (e.g., Donovan, Dwight, & Schneider, 2014;Levin & Zickar, 2002). In particular, if some applicants fake more than others do, it can change who gets a job offer (or at least who jumps of the personality test hurdle in a selection process).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self‐reports

König

Thommen

Wittwer

et al. 2017

Although self‐report personality tests are a comparatively cheap and easy‐to‐administer personnel selection tool, researchers have criticized them for not predicting enough criterion‐related variance. Researchers have suggested using observer‐ratings of personality (e.g., as part of a reference check from a supervisor) because observer‐ratings have been reported to be more predictive. However, it is theoretically and empirically unclear whether supervisors also engage in faking (the intentional distortion of responses). Study 1 explored faking among managers who were first asked to imagine that a subordinate had to leave his/her job for private reasons and then to rate the personality of the subordinate. A week later, managers rated their subordinates honestly. A repeated‐measures MANOVA indicated that managers did fake. Study 2 (among supervisors of working students) replicated the above findings but also showed that there is less faking in supervisor‐ratings than in self‐ratings. Furthermore, we found no evidence that the validity of personality scales for predicting academic performance depends on self‐ versus observer‐ratings or on an applicant versus an honest condition. These two studies thus show that practitioners should not equate personality ratings obtained from observers in a selection context with honest personality ratings.