Editing Personality test (section)

===Respondent faking===
{{more citations needed|date=May 2014}}
One problem with self-report measures of personality is that respondents are often able to distort their responses.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Arendasy|first=M. |author2=Sommer, Herle |author3=Schutzhofer, Inwanschitz|title=Modeling effects of faking on an objective personality test.|journal=Journal of Individual Differences|year=2011|volume=32|issue=4|pages=210–218|doi=10.1027/1614-0001/a000053}}</ref> Intentional faking is when responses are distorted in order to gain a benefit. There are two main types of faking: faking-good presenting a better self image and faking-bad presenting a worse self image.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Martínez |first1=Alexandra |last2=Salgado |first2=Jesús F. |date=2021-09-29 |title=A Meta-Analysis of the Faking Resistance of Forced-Choice Personality Inventories |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |language=English |volume=12 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732241 |doi-access=free |pmid=34659043 |pmc=8511514 |issn=1664-1078}}</ref>

Several meta-analyses show that people are able to substantially change their scores on personality tests when such tests are taken under high-stakes conditions, such as part of a job selection procedure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hu |first1=Jing |last2=Connelly |first2=Brian S. |date=December 2021 |title=Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subjects studies |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12338 |journal=International Journal of Selection and Assessment |language=en |volume=29 |issue=3–4 |pages=412–426 |doi=10.1111/ijsa.12338 |s2cid=237756660 |issn=0965-075X|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Sarah A. |last2=Double |first2=Kit S. |last3=Birney |first3=Damian P. |last4=MacCann |first4=Carolyn |date=2022-07-01 |title=How much can people fake on the dark triad? A meta-analysis and systematic review of instructed faking |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692200126X |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |language=en |volume=193 |pages=111622 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2022.111622 |s2cid=247722972 |issn=0191-8869|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Work in experimental settings<ref>(e.g., Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999; Martin, Bowen & Hunt, 2002)</ref> has also shown that when student samples have been asked to deliberately fake on a personality test, they clearly demonstrated that they are capable of doing so.
In 2007 over 5000 job applicants who completed the same personality test twice after a six month gap, found that their results showed no significant differences, potentially indicating that people may not significantly distort their responses.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hogan|first=Joyce|title=Personality Measurement, Faking, and Employment Selection|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=92|issue=5|pages=1270–85|url=http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf|publisher=American Psychological Association|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605085027/http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf|archive-date=2013-06-05|pmid=17845085|year=2007|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270}}</ref>

Several strategies have been adopted for reducing and detecting respondent faking. Researchers are looking at the timing of responses on electronically administered tests to assess faking. Brief simple syntax tends to show longer response times in faked responses than in comparison to truthful responses; longer, more complex, and negative phrasing does not show differences in timing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Monaro |first1=Merylin |last2=Mazza |first2=Cristina |last3=Colasanti |first3=Marco |last4=Ferracuti |first4=Stefano |last5=Orrù |first5=Graziella |last6=di Domenico |first6=Alberto |last7=Sartori |first7=Giuseppe |last8=Roma |first8=Paolo |date=2021-11-01 |title=Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives |journal=Psychological Research |language=en |volume=85 |issue=8 |pages=3094–3107 |doi=10.1007/s00426-020-01473-3 |issn=1430-2772 |pmc=8476468 |pmid=33452928}}</ref> One strategy involves providing a warning on the test that methods exist for detecting faking and that detection will result in negative consequences for the respondent (e.g., not being considered for the job). Forced choice ([[ipsative]] testing) has three formats: PICK (selecting a best fitting statement), MOLE (selecting a most and least fitting statement), and RANK (a most to least alike ranking), the effectiveness of using forced choice to prevent faking is inconclusive. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cao |first1=Mengyang |last2=Drasgow |first2=Fritz |date=November 2019 |title=Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000414 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |language=en |volume=104 |issue=11 |pages=1347–1368 |doi=10.1037/apl0000414 |pmid=31070382 |issn=1939-1854|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

More recently, [[Item Response Theory]] approaches have been adopted with some success in identifying item response profiles that flag fakers. While people can fake in practice they seldom do so to any significant level. To successfully fake means knowing what the ideal answer would be. Even with something as simple as assertiveness people who are unassertive and try to appear assertive often endorse the wrong items. This is because unassertive people confuse assertion with aggression, anger, oppositional behavior, etc.