FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1786980101> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1786980101 startingPage "50" @default.
• W1786980101 abstract "Summary A testee's response pattern to personality inventories may not necessarily reflect the truth as desired by test developers and users. Biased response sets which have generated the most attention are the sets. The fake bad response style is defined as any conscious or unconscious attempt to produce item-- endorsement representing more exaggerated symptomatology than is actually experienced by the respondent, with components of unbelievability and an unrealistic negative impression. Many commonly used personality inventories and self-report measures of psychopathology have been shown to be susceptible to attempts by respondents to distort results. Therefore several methods of detecting deviant response sets were incorporated, additionally several separate faking bad indicators have been developed. Faking bad response behaviour is usually investigated using specified description of the disorder which should be simulated (e.g.; psychosis, depression, cognitive impairment, cancer-phobia, problems with alcohol, coping poorly with chronic pain). Several experimental studies demonstrated measurable effects of faking bad response style in clinical, medical, forensic and neuropsychology. From an empirical point of view faking bad response behaviour is expected especially in the forensic area. High false positive rates (e.g., Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, Edens et al., 1999) among clinical populations in detecting potential faking bad behaviour illustrated forthcoming ethical problems. The diagnosis of faking bad behaviour in the single case is complex process which requires sound knowledge of clinical, medical, forensic and neuropsychological areas of psychodiagnostic. The gold standard should comprise flexible usage of specific assessment techniques (e.g., individual tests, individual deficit tests, tests specifically for malingerers, and symptom validity testing), analysis of single case data against the background of documented normative data of healthy and clinical populations (e.g., threshold models) and multi-modal psychodiagnostic approaches using different psychodiagnostic techniques. Key words: assessment, faking bad, personality inventories, clinical consequences Introduction A testee's response pattern to personality inventories may not necessarily reflect the truth as desired by test developers and users. This problem of responding inappropriately interferes with the validity of any interpretation of the test scores. Among biased response sets the sets received utmost attention. Johnson (1981) characterised two poles of the response pattern (a) self-disclosure as simple communication of facts and (b) self presentation as a social act intended to instruct others about how one is to be (p. 761). Recent developments in the design of personality inventories might be regarded as the pursuit of recognising self-presentation and understanding the complexity it introduces into measured personality scores (Pinsoneault, 1996). Social desirability, or the tendency to present what is perceived as socially desirable responses, was an early explanatory paradigm. Initially, it was thought to be an attribute of test items and should be avoidable through careful test construction (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). It was soon clear though, that to deal with people who attempt to make themselves look good on personality inventories requires more than omitting certain items (Pinsoneault, 1996). Some authors have interpreted faking as conscious, intentional attempt to respond less than honestly to personality items (Gordon & Gross, 1978; Rotter, 1960; Peltier & Walsh, 1990). Others have asserted that some distortion is due to conscious motivations but that some is also due to unconscious personality characteristics (Cattell, Ebert & Tatsuoka, 1970; Dicken, 1959; Eysenck, Eysenck & Shaw, 1974; Jemail & LoPiccolo, 1982; Mills & Hogan, 1978). …" @default.
• W1786980101 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1786980101 creator A5061429398 @default.
• W1786980101 date "2002-01-01" @default.
• W1786980101 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1786980101 title "Faking Bad in Personality Inventories: Consequences for the Clinical Context" @default.
• W1786980101 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W1786980101 type Work @default.
• W1786980101 sameAs 1786980101 @default.
• W1786980101 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1786980101 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1786980101 hasAuthorship W1786980101A5061429398 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C123273963 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C159447121 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C166523933 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C187288502 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C2776640315 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C2780731512 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C123273963 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C151730666 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C15744967 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C159447121 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C166523933 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C17744445 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C180747234 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C187288502 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C199539241 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C2776640315 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C2779343474 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C2780731512 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C70410870 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C77805123 @default.
• W1786980101 hasConceptScore W1786980101C86803240 @default.
• W1786980101 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1786980101 hasLocation W17869801011 @default.
• W1786980101 hasOpenAccess W1786980101 @default.
• W1786980101 hasPrimaryLocation W17869801011 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W1557528892 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2002630636 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2022436040 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2054250433 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2060179162 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2074297511 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2079872052 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2088648860 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2091574454 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2150622608 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2189581238 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2317791895 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2366525215 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2388664082 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2505880937 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2752915772 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2766064114 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W2801341245 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W3209169029 @default.
• W1786980101 hasRelatedWork W3209993756 @default.
• W1786980101 hasVolume "44" @default.
• W1786980101 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1786980101 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1786980101 magId "1786980101" @default.
• W1786980101 workType "article" @default.