FAKABILITY OF TWO DIFFERENT ROLE-PLAY METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING ASSERTION

Jeffrey M. Kern · Stephen J. Karten

3 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Reports

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Personality Traits and Psychology

Abstract

The fakability of two methodologically different role-play tests of assertion was examined, 30 undergraduates low in assertiveness were tested and retested on the Behavioral Assertiveness Test--Revised and the Idiographic Role-play Test. Half of the testees were instructed to fake assertion during the second testing. Analysis indicated that both tests were fakable; however, testees reported more difficulty faking the latter test than the former. The detection of faking may be possible, particularly on role-play tests employing an idiographic methodology.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Behavioral Assessment: A Practical Handbook 1971Behavior rehearsal with modeling and coaching in assertion training.1973Components of assertive behavior 1983Recurrent problems in the behavioral assessment of social skill 1991An evaluation of a novel role-play methodology: The standardized idiographic approach

Cited by

1996Objective Detection of Faking on Role-Play Tests of Assertion: Gender Differences

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.