The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions.

Abstract

Response distortion (RD), or faking, among job applicants completing personality inventories has been a concern for selection specialists. In a field study using the NEO Personality Inventory, Revised, the authors show that RD is significantly greater among job applicants than among job incumbents, that there are significant individual differences in RD, and that RD among job applicants can have a significant effect on who is hired. These results are discussed in the context of recent studies suggesting that RD has little effect on the predictive validity of personality inventories. The authors conclude that future research, rather than focusing on predictive validity, should focus instead on the effect of RD on construct validity and hiring decisions. has on the validity, utility, and fairness of preemployment personality assessments. The purpose of this article is to explore the extent of response distortion on personality inventory scores in an actual applicant-testing environment and its potential effect on which applicants get hired.

Evaluation of the Fake Resistance of a Forced-choice Paired-comparison Computer Adaptive Personality Measure

“…The authors found that when there is a smaller selection ratio, larger numbers of people from the incentive group would be hired over people in the honest groups. Rosse et al (1998) also found that there was an overrepresentation of identified fakers in the top 5 percent of job applicants. Both studies found that as the selection ratios decrease, more fakers than honest respondents are hired, but when the selection ratio increases and more people are hired for the job, then the numbers of potential fakers and honest responders hired evens out (Mueller-Hanson et al, 2003;Rosse et al, 1998).…”

“…Rosse et al (1998) also found that there was an overrepresentation of identified fakers in the top 5 percent of job applicants. Both studies found that as the selection ratios decrease, more fakers than honest respondents are hired, but when the selection ratio increases and more people are hired for the job, then the numbers of potential fakers and honest responders hired evens out (Mueller-Hanson et al, 2003;Rosse et al, 1998). Since there is a potential for hiring more fakers combined with the lack of solid and prevalent evidence of faking on job performance of actual applicants, it is important to create measures that reduce a person's ability to fake.…”

“…This response distortion has been measured by increases in mean scores of the applicant group over those of the incumbent groups. Rosse et al (1998) found that applicants had higher personality scores on more favorable traits (e.g., agreeableness) and lower scores on less favorable traits (e.g., neuroticism) than incumbents. Research comparing experimentally manipulated groups (where one group is given an incentive and is directed to distort their response, and another group is asked to respond honestly), has also found significant increases in scores from the incentive (faking) groups over the honest group.…”

“…The identification of people who fake or distort their responses on personality measures is a popular and longstanding topic for psychologists and human resource managers. Research has shown that when a person does not accurately respond and they inflate their scores, they have a better chance of getting hired for the job (Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2003;Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998). A review of studies by Hough (1998) revealed that intentional distortion has little effect on the criterion validities of personality measures.…”

İşe Alim Görüşmeleri̇nde Aldatma Davranişinin Görüşmeye Gi̇ren Ve Gi̇rmeyen Ki̇şi̇ler Açisindan İncelenmesi̇

“…Yine işe alınacak kişilere uygulanan ve işe alım görüşmelerinde aldatma davranışına benzeyen, kişilik testlerinde aldatma davranışı hakkında da birçok araştırma mevcuttur (Arthur, Woehr ve Graziano, 2001;Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick ve Smith, 2006;Christiansen, Goffm, Johnston ve Rothstein, 1994;Dalen, Stanton ve Roberts, 2001;Goffin ve Christiansen, 2003;Furnham, 1990;Heggestad, Morrison, Charlie, McCloy, 2006;Hogan, Barrett ve Hogan, 2007;Holden ve Hibbs, 1995;Jackson, Wroblewski ve Ashton, 2000;Luther ve Thornton III, 1999;Mahar, Cologon ve Duck, 1995;Pauls ve Crost, 2005;Rothstein ve Goffin, 2006;Rosse, Stecher, Miller ve Levin, 1998;Schmitt ve Oswald, 2006;Ones ve Viswesvaran, 1998;Van Hooft ve Born, 2012).…”