"Test-wiseness" on personality scales.

Abstract

Test-wiseness on self-report personality scales was explored, using measures of accuracy in estimating the frequency of endorsement of personality items, estimating their social desirability, and identifying and "keying" items that measured the same factor, as well as indices of ability to change scores on standard personality scales when they were administered with "fake-good" and "fake-bad" instructions. 'I'hes e variables generally did not correlate with each other, and they had only moderate and scattered correlations with personality scales administered with standard instructions. The test-wiseness measures were generally uncorrelated with ability and cognitive style tests and defensiveness scales, but they did correlate consistently with social desirability response style scales."Test-Wiseness" on Personality Scales 1 According to test lore, people vary in their knowledge about tests, and this "test-wiseness" affects their performance on these devices--the more test-wise obtaining higher scores on ability and aptitude tests, and distorting their scores on personality inventories (

They Don't Do It Often, But They Do It Well: Exploring the relationship between applicant mental abilities and faking

“…They might have high self-efficacy and believe that their high mental abilities will likely be sufficient to secure a high test score (De Fruyt, Aluja, Garcia, Rolland, & Jung, 2006). In this type of situation, willingness plays a much more important role because high mental ability applicants are capable of faking and probably could recognize the opportunity to fake (as demonstrated in experimental studies ;Furnham, 1986;Kimber, 1947;Lao, 2001;Noll, 1951;Stricker, 1969).…”

“…For example, studies that have used experimental designs and instructed participants to take personality measures under different instructions (e.g., fake good, fake bad, respond honestly) have shown that individuals who are higher in mental abilities have higher ability to fake and respond to personality questions with more distortion (Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004;Furnham, 1986;Grubb & McDaniel, 2007;Kimber, 1947;Lao, 2001;Noll, 1951;Stricker, 1969). Thus, these researchers argue that faking is a function of the respondent's mental abilities.…”

On Test‐Wiseness and Some Related Constructs

“…In principle TW can still operate in other measurements, for example personality measurements (Strieker 1969; see also Guilford 1954). The only thing that in the definition of TW possibly links TW with achievement and ability tests is the expression '... to receive a high score in relation to the purpose of the test'.…”

“…As seen above, TW includes not only the ability to use faults in the formats of the tests, but also the ability to pay attention to the purpose of the test and the ability to use characteristics outside the test itself. The few studies that have been carried out with the aim of empirically rooting TW have also shown that different abilities are probably included under the designation TW (Diamond & Evans 1972, Strieker 1969.…”

“…In this way the concept TW becomes applicable in knowledge tests as well as in personality measure contexts (see Strieker 1969). Therefore, in most cases TW covers what 'response set' has often signified in knowledge tests.…”