The Impact of Coaching on Faking-Good/Under-Reporting on the PAI

Chantler, Lisa; Lushington, Kurt

doi:10.1080/13218719.2015.1026867

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the three samples showed significant differences in the underreport level, with the organizational sample clearly presenting both a greater tendency to deny psychological difficulties, and to present in an unrealistically positive way. This sample had the highest T scores is the underreport scales, which is in accordance with results of studies using simulation designs, with the MMPI-2 (e.g., Mazza et al, 2020) and with other personality inventories (e.g., Chantler & Lushington. 2016), in which participants in the faking good condition had significantly higher values in the underreport scales than participants in the honest condition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Nondisclosing employees are typically motivated by concerns about public stigma or fears of job security negative effects in their careers (Ellison et al, 2003). Nevertheless, most of the studies in this field use simulation designs with students or volunteers and not real-world samples from different contexts (e.g., Chantler & Lushington, 2016;Hahn, 2005;Mazza et al, 2020;Roma et al, 2019). Baer and Miller (2002) estimate the prevalence of underreporting in applied contexts, such as organizational selection and custody evaluations, at 30%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting underreport in real-world assessment contexts. The utility of multiple-scale indicators

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underreport of symptoms and personality characteristics is a relevant problem for psychological assessment. Nevertheless, most of the studies in this field use simulation designs. This study aims at comparing underreport prevalence in real-world samples of different contexts, using single-scale and multiple-scale underreport indicators from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) to identify the best one and assess its implications on the clinical scales scores. Using a Differential Prevalence Group design, 1438 participants were assessed with the MMPI-2, grouped in three samples from two non-clinical contexts (community and organizational) and one clinical context. The organizational sample had the highest prevalence of underreporting. Overall, multiple-scale indicator LKS ≥ T65 performed better at distinguishing these samples. Analysis of variance revealed that LKS ≥ T65 was also the only indicator in which participants doing underreport consistently varied from honest responders in the clinical scales scores, while also having lower probability of producing both type I and II errors. The existence of underreport has clear implication on the clinical scales results. The multiple-scale indicator is the most robust and should be used in the detection of underreporting. This is a relevant implication for psychological assessment in different contexts, mainly in the organizational context. La minimización de síntomas es un problema relevante para la evaluación psicológica. La mayoría de los estudios utilizan diseños de simulación. Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la prevalencia de la minimización de síntomas y sus implicaciones, utilizando indicadores de escala única y de escala múltiple del Inventario Multifásico de Personalidad de Minnesota-2 (MMPI-2) en muestras reales. Utilizando un diseño de Grupo de Prevalencia Diferencial se evaluaron 1438 participantes, agrupados en tres muestras: dos no clínicas (comunitario y organizacional) y una muestra clínica. La muestra organizacional tuvo la mayor prevalencia de minimización de síntomas. En general, el indicador de escala múltiple LKS ≥ T65 proporcionó los mejores resultados. El análisis de la varianza reveló que el LKS ≥ T65 era también el único indicador de diferenciación, en las escalas clínicas, de los participantes que realizaban o no la minimización de síntomas, a la vez que tenía una menor probabilidad de producir errores tipo I y II. La presencia de minimización tiene una clara implicación en las puntuaciones clínicas. El indicador de escalas múltiples es el más robusto en la detección de la minimización de síntomas y es relevante para la evaluación en diferentes contextos, principalmente en lo organizacional.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%