Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 529

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement

Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, Ones, Deniz S.·1999·Educational and Psychological Measurement
DOI 10.1177/00131649921969802
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors examined whether individuals can fake their responses to a personality inventory if instructed to do so. Between-subjects and within-subject designs were metaanalyzed separately. Across 51 studies, fakability did not vary by personality dimension; all the Big Five factors were equally fakable. Faking produced the largest distortions in social desirability scales. Instructions to fake good produced lower effect sizes compared with instructions to fake bad. Comparing meta-analytic results from within-subjects and between-subjects designs, we conclude, based on statistical and methodological considerations, that within-subjects designs produce more accurate estimates. Between-subjects designs may distort estimates due to Subject × Treatment interactions and low statistical power.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00131649921969802

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00354.x · DOI
  2. 10.1002/1097-4679(198411)40:6<1394::AID-JCLP2270400620>3.0.CO;2-R · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198411)40:6<1394::aid-jclp2270400620>3.0.co;2-r
  3. 10.1037/h0030488 · doi:10.1037/h0030488
  4. 10.1177/0013164492052003016 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.496 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.496
  6. 10.1037/h0041380 · doi:10.1037/h0041380
  7. 10.2466/pr0.1963.13.1.171 · DOI
  8. 10.2466/pr0.1963.13.3.878 · doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.13.3.878
  9. 10.2466/pr0.1974.34.1.247 · DOI
  10. 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.2.388 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/00223980.1968.10544122 · DOI
  12. 10.2466/pr0.1973.32.2.586 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/1097-4679(197207)28:3+<375::AID-JCLP2270280321>3.0.CO;2-3 · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197207)28:3+<375::aid-jclp2270280321>3.0.co;2-3
  14. 10.1002/1097-4679(199201)48:1<54::AID-JCLP2270480107>3.0.CO;2-G · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199201)48:1<54::aid-jclp2270480107>3.0.co;2-g
  15. Cattell, R. B., 1973, Personality and Mood Questionnaire
  16. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01581.x · DOI
  17. 10.1207/s15327906mbr1003_4 · DOI
  18. Cook, T. D., 1979, Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings
  19. 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90191-Q · DOI
  20. Craig, R. J., 1994, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 95
  21. Crowne, D. P., 1964, The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence
  22. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_6 · DOI
  23. 10.5465/AMBPP.1996.4979062 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb02158.x · DOI
  25. 10.1037/h0039102 · doi:10.1037/h0039102
  26. 10.2466/pr0.1973.32.2.516 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/h0078942 · DOI
  28. Gough, H. G., 1947, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 215, 10.1037/h0063295 · DOI
  29. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5702_6 · DOI
  30. 10.1037/h0048300 · doi:10.1037/h0048300
  31. 10.1002/1097-4679(198010)36:4<910::AID-JCLP2270360412>3.0.CO;2-X · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198010)36:4<910::aid-jclp2270360412>3.0.co;2-x
  32. 10.1037/0022-006X.46.5.892 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.46.5.892
  33. 10.1177/0093854893020004007 · doi:10.1177/0093854893020004007
  34. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hough, L. M., 1996, Individual differences & behavior in organizations, 31
  36. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5302_6 · DOI
  37. Hunter, J. E., 1990, Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings
  38. 10.2466/pr0.1975.37.2.379 · DOI
  39. 10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3.747 · doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3.747
  40. 10.1177/001316447803800437 · doi:10.1177/001316447803800437
  41. 10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.324 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.324
  42. 10.1177/001316447403400312 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/1097-4679(198901)45:1<76::AID-JCLP2270450111>3.0.CO;2-H · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198901)45:1<76::aid-jclp2270450111>3.0.co;2-h
  44. Meehl, P., 1946, Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525, 10.1037/h0053634 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3.891 · DOI
  46. 10.1177/001316447703700430 · doi:10.1177/001316447703700430
  47. Nunnally, J. C., 1978, Psychometric theory
  48. 10.1177/0306624X9103500203 · doi:10.1177/0306624x9103500203
  49. Ones, D. S., 1993, Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 3515
  50. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660 · Paper page
  51. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1176/ajp.147.8.1057 · doi:10.1176/ajp.147.8.1057
  53. 10.1002/1097-4679(198907)45:4<575::AID-JCLP2270450412>3.0.CO;2-F · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198907)45:4<575::aid-jclp2270450412>3.0.co;2-f
  54. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_6 · DOI
  55. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607 · Paper page
  56. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.77 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.77
  57. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00377.x · DOI
  58. 10.2466/pr0.1974.34.1.316 · DOI
  59. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4505_10 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4505_10
  60. 10.2466/pr0.1962.11.3.708 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00696.x · DOI · Paper page
  62. 10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.53 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.53
  63. 10.2466/pr0.1975.37.1.71 · DOI
  64. 10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.317 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.317
  65. 10.1177/001316445401400404 · DOI
  66. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5002_2 · DOI
  67. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_13 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_13
  68. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1979.tb00476.x · DOI
  69. Zickar, M. J., 12th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists
  70. 10.1177/014662169602000107 · DOI
  71. Zickar, M. J., annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists

Cited by

See all 529

Metadata

Authors
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S.
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1999-04
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
197-210
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
DOI
10.1177/00131649921969802
OpenAlex
W2037268451
Cited by
529
References
4
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00131649921969802
The paper
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.