Faking on Personality Measures: Implications for selection involving multiple predictors

Abstract

The potential for faking on noncognitive measures in high stakes testing situations remains a concern for many selection researchers and practitioners. However, the majority of previous research examining the practical effects of faking on noncognitive assessments has focused on these measures in isolation, rather than the more common situation in which they are used in combination with other predictors. The present simulation examined the effects of faking on a conscientiousness measure on criterion‐related validity, mean performance of those selected, and selection decision consistency when hiring decisions were based on this measure alone vs in combination with two other predictors across a range of likely selection scenarios. Overall, results indicated that including additional predictors substantially reduced – but did not eliminate – the negative effects of faking. Faking effects varied across outcomes and selection scenarios, with effects ranging from trivial to noteworthy even for multiple‐predictor selection. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

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