CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Psychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: Indirect measurement and test faking.

LeBreton, James M., Barksdale, Cheryl D., Robin, Jennifer, James, Lawrence R.·2007·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conditional reasoning is a new measurement technique used to measure cognitive biases associated with latent personality motives. The current article describes 3 studies examining 2 related measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests (CRTs). Study 1 examined the necessity of maintaining indirect assessment when administering CRTs. Results indicated that, compared with a control condition, 2 experimental conditions that disclosed the purpose of assessment yielded significant mean shifts on a CRT. Study 2 explored whether CRTs could be faked when the purpose of assessment was not disclosed. Results indicated that when indirect measurement was maintained, CRTs appeared to be resistant to faking. Study 3 compared scores on the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression across student, applicant, and incumbent samples. Results indicated no significant mean differences among these samples.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 71 · Cited by 175

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Averill, J. R. (1993). Illusions of anger. In R. B.Felson & J. T.Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 171–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  2. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
  3. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272. · DOI
  4. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (in press). An integrative typology of personal assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology.
  6. Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (in press). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods.
  7. Binning, J. F., LeBreton, J. M., & Adorno, A. J. (1999). Assessing personality. In R. W.Eder & M. M.Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 105–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  8. Bornstein, R. F. (2002). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68. · DOI
  9. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33. · DOI
  10. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley. · DOI
  11. Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M.Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  12. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122–133. · DOI
  14. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. · DOI
  15. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I.Mervielde, I. J.Deary, F.De Fruyt, & F.Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
  16. Goodwin, G. F., O'Shea, P. G., Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Ardison, S. D. (2004, April). What makes a good team player? Development of a conditional reasoning measure of team orientation. In S. B.Gustafson (Chair), Making conditional reasoning tests work: Reports from the frontier Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
  17. Gough, H. G., & Arvey, R. D. (1998). Personnel Reaction Blank. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  18. Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  19. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley. · DOI
  20. Gustafson, S. B. (1999, April). Out of their own mouths: A conditional reasoning instrument for identifying aberrant self-promoters. In P.Babiak (Chair), Liars of the dark side: Can personality interfere with personality measurement? Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
  21. Gustafson, S. B. (2000, April). Out of their own mouths: II. Continuing support for the validity of a conditional reasoning instrument for identifying aberrant self-promoters. In S. Gustafson (Chair), Personality in the shadows: A continuum of destructiveness. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
  22. Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford Press.
  23. Hawes, S. R. (2001). A comparison of biodata, ability, and a conditional reasoning test as predictors of reliable behavior in the workplace. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 6172.
  24. Hollenbeck, J., & Whitener, E. (1988). Reclaiming personality traits for personnel selection: Self-esteem as an illustrative case. Journal of Management, 14, 81–91. · DOI
  25. Holmes, D. S. (1974). The conscious control of thematic projection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 323–329. · DOI
  26. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validity of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hough, L. M., & Furnham, A. (2003). Use of personality variables in work settings. In W. C.Borman, D. R.Ilgen, & R. J.Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 131–169). New York: Wiley.
  28. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. · DOI
  29. Husemann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24. · DOI
  30. Ingerick, M., Cortina, J. M., Dudley, N. M., Margalit, D. L., Orvis, K. A., & Baughman, K. L. (2004, April). “Adapting” to a new measurement approach: Lessons learned from developing a conditional reasoning measure of adaptability. In S. B.Gustafson (Chair), Making conditional reasoning tests work: Reports from the frontier Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
  31. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality research form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
  32. James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163. · DOI
  33. James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. · DOI
  34. James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Bowler, J. L., & Mitchell, T. R. (2004). The conditional reasoning measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human Performance, 17, 271–295. · DOI
  35. James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W., LeBreton, J. M., et al. (2005). Conditional reasoning: An efficient, indirect method for assessing implicit cognitive readiness to aggress. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 69–99. · DOI
  36. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197–209. · DOI
  38. LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., & Adorno, A. J. (2006). Subclinical psychopaths. In J. C.Thomas & D.Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology: Vol. 1. Personality and everyday functioning (pp. 388–411). New York: Wiley.
  39. LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., Adorno, A. J., & Melcher, K. M. (2004). Importance of personality and job-specific affect for predicting job attitudes and withdrawal behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 300–325. · DOI
  40. LeBreton, J. M., & McIntyre, M. D. (2004, April). Conditional reasoning: Strategies and suggestions for item development and validation. In S. B.Gustafson (Chair), Making conditional reasoning tests work: Reports from the frontier Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
  41. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53, 242–259. · DOI
  42. McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?Psychological Review, 96, 690–702. · DOI
  43. Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (1999, April). Current and new directions in conditional reasoning measurement. In J. M.LeBreton & J. F.Binning (Cochairs), Recent issues and innovations in personality assessment Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
  44. Millon, T. (1990). The disorders of personality. In L. A.Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 339–370). New York: Guilford Press.
  45. Moore, K. D. (1998). Patterns of inductive reasoning: Developing critical thinking skills (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
  46. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  47. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245–269. · DOI
  48. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. · DOI
  49. Orpen, C. (1978). Conscious control of projection in the thematic apperception test. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 67–75.
  50. Rescher, N. (1980). Induction: An essay on the justification of inductive reasoning. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  51. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644. · DOI
  52. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966–974. · DOI
  53. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Smith, D. B., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 211–219. · DOI
  55. Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 219–242. · DOI
  56. Tedeschi, J. T., & Nesler, M. S. (1993). Grievances: Development and reactions. In R. B.Felson & J. T.Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 13–46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  57. Toch, H. (1993). Good violence and bad violence: Self-presentations of aggressors through accounts and war stories. In R. B.Felson & J. T.Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 193–206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  58. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210. · DOI
  59. Walton, W. R. (1999, April). Identification and characterization of antisocial personality disorder. In J. M.LeBreton & J. F.Binning (Cochairs), Recent issues and innovations in personality assessment Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
  60. Walton, W. R. (2004). Justification of antisocial behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
  61. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230–250. · DOI
  62. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1159–1177. · DOI
  63. Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551–563. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
LeBreton, J. M., Barksdale, C. D., Robin, J., & James, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
1-16
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.1
OpenAlex
W2072045174
Cited by
175
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 16
FWCI
13.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
indirect measurement, cognitive biases, aggression, test validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Logic, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Psychological Tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review