The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quasi-ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventories and the Control of Faking: The Biasing Effects of Transient Error
Open accessAbstract
To date, experimental research on the effect of faking on personality measures has used two types of designs: within-subject designs and between-subjects designs. None of these designs permit us to control for the effects of transient error on faking. Using a Latin-square design (LSD), the current study examines the effects of faking on the Big Five as assessed by a quasi-ipsative forced-choice (FC) personality inventory. LSD is a type of experimental design that simultaneously permits us to control for between-subject differences, within-subject variability, and transient error. The sample consisted of 246 participants (four experimental groups, assessed twice, 2-3 week interval). The results showed that (1) faking effect size can be largely attributed to transient error and (2) the quasi-ipsative FC format shows great resistance to faking behavior. The average effect size (Cohen’s d) for the Big Five was 0.21, 0.12, and 0.09 for observed faking, transient error, and true faking, respectively. On average, 62% of observed faking effect size can be attributed to transient error. To conclude, we discuss the implications of these findings for the research and practice of personnel selection.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
After controlling for transient error effects, faking has no practical effect on quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories.
“recent research has shown that after controlling for transient error effects, faking has no practical effect on QIFC personality inventories (Martínez et al., 2022).”
From A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Cognitive Intelligence and the Big Five Assessed by Quasi-Ipsative Forced-choice Personality Inventories: Implications for Predicting Job Performance (2025) · cites this paper as Martínez et al., 2022
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
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings
Shrout, P. E. (1980) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(80)90063-4 · Cited by 6,091
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170 · Cited by 1,693
Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology
Nesselroade, J., & Cattell, R. (1968) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0893-5 · Cited by 1,351
Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring.
Öneş, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660 · Cited by 924
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581 · Cited by 842
RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS
MORGESON, F. P., CAMPION, M. A., DIPBOYE, R. L., HOLLENBECK, J. R., MURPHY, K., & SCHMITT, N. (2007) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x · Cited by 638
Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement
Viswesvaran, C., & Öneş, D. S. (1999) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131649921969802 · Cited by 529
Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures.
Hicks, L. E. (1970) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0029780 · Cited by 478
A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures
Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. Τ., & Smith, M. A. (2006) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x · Cited by 400
Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.8.2.206 · Cited by 362
Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement
Baron, H. (1996) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00599.x · Cited by 321
The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support?
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004 · Cited by 321
Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1803_4 · Cited by 250
Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/00483480710731310 · Cited by 240
The Impact of Faking on Employment Tests: Does Forced Choice Offer a Solution?
Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1304_3 · Cited by 233
New Perspectives on Faking in Personality Assessment
(2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387476.001.0001 · Cited by 226
How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires.
Brown, A., & Maydeu‐Olivares, A. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0030641 · Cited by 217
Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.716198 · Cited by 205
Self-citationCao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000414 · Cited by 195
The latin square principle in the design and analysis of psychological experiments.
Grant, D. A. (1948) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0053912 · Cited by 184
Murphy, K. R. (2005) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2 · Cited by 184
A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior
(2007) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00081_5.x · Cited by 182
An analytical and empirical examination of some properties of ipsative measures
Clemans, W. V. (1967) · Cited by 169
Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection
Meade, A. W. (2004) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/0963179042596504 · Cited by 168
The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality
Bartram, D. (1996) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00597.x · Cited by 152
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Tauriz, G. (2015) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12098 · Cited by 138
Self-citationTHE VALIDITY OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES DECAYS WHEN APPLICANTS FAKE.
Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.1996.4979062 · Cited by 126
The Impact of Applicant Faking on Selection Measures, Hiring Decisions, and Employee Performance
Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Schneider, D. (2013) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9318-5 · Cited by 123
Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion.
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.386 · Cited by 122
Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation.
Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.140 · Cited by 116
How important is transient error in estimating reliability? Going beyond simulation studies.
Becker, G. (2000) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.5.3.370 · Cited by 84
Salgado, J. F. (2017) · Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones · doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2017.07.001 · Cited by 75
Self-citationSalgado, J. F., & Lado, M. A. (2018) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2018a23 · Cited by 66
Self-citationSalgado, J. F. (2016) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12142 · Cited by 65
Self-citationMorillo, D., Abad, F. J., Kreitchmann, R. S., Leenen, I., Hontangas, P. M., & Ponsoda, V. (2019) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2019a11 · Cited by 42
A Meta-Analysis of the Faking Resistance of Forced-Choice Personality Inventories
Martínez, A., & Salgado, J. F. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732241 · Cited by 33
Self-citationFisher, P., Robie, C., Christiansen, N., Speer, A., & Schneider, L. (2019) · Personnel Assessment and Decisions · doi:10.25035/pad.2019.01.003 · Cited by 31
Izquierdo, A. L. G., Ramos‐Villagrasa, P. J., & Lubiano, M. A. (2020) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2020a22 · Cited by 21
Transient error or specificity? An alternative to the staggered equivalent split-half procedure.
Vautier, S., & Jmel, S. (2003) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.8.2.225 · Cited by 19
Otero, I., Cuadrado, D., & Martínez, A. (2020) · Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones · doi:10.5093/jwop2020a17 · Cited by 16
Self-citationFaking Effects on the Factor Structure of a Quasi-Ipsative Forced-Choice Personality Inventory
Martínez, A., Moscoso, S., & Lado, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2021a7 · Cited by 14
Self-citationTransient error in personality scores: Considering honest and faked responses
Heggestad, E. D., George, E., & Reeve, C. L. L. (2006) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.014 · Cited by 10
Martínez, A., Moscoso, S., & Lado, M. A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13084398 · Cited by 3
Self-citationConstruyendo test adaptativos de elección forzosa "on the fly" para la medición de la personalidad
Abad, F. J., de Madrid, U. A., Kreitchmann, R. S., de Madrid, U. A., Sorrel, M. Á., de Madrid, U. A., Nájera, P., de Madrid, U. A., García‐Garzón, E., Cela, U. C. J., et al. (2021) · Papeles del Psicólogo - Psychologist Papers · doi:10.23923/pap.psicol.2982 · Cited by 2
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Cochran, 1978, Experimental designs
- Dilchert, 2012, Managing HR for environmental sustainability, 187
- Gao, 2005, Latin squares in experimental design
- MacCann, 2012, New perspectives on faking in personality assessment, 309
- Mesmer-Magnus, 2006, A closer examination of applicant faking behavior, 85
- Salgado, 2014, Reliability, construct, and criterion validity of the Quasi-Ipsative Personality Inventory (QI5F/Tri)
- Smith, 2012, New perspectives on faking in personality assessment, 53
- Zickar, 2006, A closer examination of applicant faking behavior, 21
- Ziegler, 2012, New perspectives on faking in personality assessment, 3
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ramos‐Villagrasa, P. J., del Río, E. F., Hermoso, R., & Cebrián, J. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302429 · Cited by 14
Fan, X., & Zhu, Y. (2023) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2023.2231181 · Cited by 13
Faking resistance of a quasi‐ipsative RIASEC occupational interest measure
Rasheed, S., & Robie, C. (2023) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12427 · Cited by 11
Predicting technostress: The Big Five model of personality and subjective well-being
Cuadrado, D., Otero, I., Martínez, A., París, T., & Moscoso, S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313247 · Cited by 16
Self-citationLee, P., Joo, S., & Son, M. (2023) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09911-w · Cited by 9
The Big Five, Dark Personality, Moral Disengagement and Counterproductive Behavior at Work
Navas, M. P., París, T., Sobral, J., & Moscoso, S. (2025) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2025a4 · Cited by 3
Salgado, J. F. (2023) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2023a13 · Cited by 2
Self-citationMartínez, A., Lado, M., Cuadrado, D., & Salgado, J. F. (2025) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2025a3 · Cited by 4
Self-citationRamos‐Villagrasa, P. J., & Naryniecki, T. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13701-3.00323-6
Integrating forced choice with rapid response measurement
Rasheed, S., Robie, C., Meade, A. W., Christiansen, N. D., Loy, R. W., & Fisher, P. A. (2025) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.70073
Lee, P., & Ivany, R. (2025) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Metadata
- Authors
- Martínez, A., Salgado, J. F., & Lado, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
- Venue
- Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 241-248
- ISSN
- 1576-5962 (ISSN-L)
- 2174-0534
- OpenAlex
- W4312880386
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2020)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- faking, transient faults, personality tests, Big Five personality traits, Latin square design, within-subjects design, between-subjects design, personnel selection, response bias
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
