The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Rules of Evidence and the Prevalence of Applicant Faking
Abstract
This chapter addresses the longstanding question of “Do applicants fake?”. The authors discuss the nature of this question, a review of the relevant evidence, and an estimate of the degree to which faking on personality measures occurs in applicant contexts. Previous research has produced disparate answers to the question of whether applicants fake, with some researchers claiming the majority of applicants engage in the behavior and others suggesting the incidence of faking is negligible. In order to “prove” the existence of faking behavior, the authors use a metaphorical framework consisting of the forms of evidence often presented in a criminal trial to organize the diverse sources of evidence collected across numerous study designs. In addition, the authors present arguments that rule out alternative explanations for the outcomes of faking behavior. The data presented in this chapter suggest that on average 30% (+ or – 10%) of applicants engage in faking behavior.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“R. L. Griffith and Converse (2011) synthesized the empirical literature via statistical analyses, simulations, and logical deduction and estimated that, on average, 30% of applicants ( ± 10%) engage in faking behavior.”
From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as R. L. Griffith and Converse (2011)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions
Griffith, R. L., Wolfeld, L., Armon, B. K., Rios, J., & Liu, O. L. (2016) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12112 · Cited by 211
“R. L. Griffith and Converse (2011) synthesized the empirical literature via statistical analyses, simulations, and logical deduction and estimated that, on average, 30% of applicants (±10”
BackgroundSelf-citationTheoretical and Practical Advances in the Assessment of Cross-Cultural Competence
Gabrenya, Jr., William K., G., Richard L., M., Rana G., P., Marne H., R., & Patrice (2012) · doi:10.21236/ada564931 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Griffith, R. L., & Converse, P. D.
- Venue
- New Perspectives on Faking in Personality Assessment
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2011-08-22
- Pages
- 34-52
- OpenAlex
- W2481247291
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 21.09
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Keywords
- applicant faking, personality assessment, evidence law, applicant screening, psychometric validity
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