Further Evidence on 16 PF Distortion Scales

Abstract

Norms were obtained on a nationally representative sample of 4830 adult men and women for two empirically developed faking indices for Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) by Winder, Karson, and O'Dell (1975). These data provided convincing evidence that the cutoff suggested in the original work for the faking good scale was far too liberal and would routinely classify more than half of all 16 PF protocols as invalid. The faking bad cutoff appeared to be approximately correct. The correlations of the faking scales with the 16 PF primary factors were highly congruent with those reported in the development study and provided additional validity evidence for the two indices. Both indices were found to be sufficiently reliable to permit adjustments to be made in the primary trait scales when distortion is above average.

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 — 19 citations exist upstream.

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