Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Faking in personnel selection: Does it matter and can we do anything about it? Eric D. Heggestad University of North Carolina - Charlotte Education Testing.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Faking in personnel selection: Does it matter and can we do anything about it? Eric D. Heggestad University of North Carolina - Charlotte Education Testing."— Presentation transcript:

1 Faking in personnel selection: Does it matter and can we do anything about it? Eric D. Heggestad University of North Carolina - Charlotte Education Testing Service Mini-Conference Oct 13 th & 14 th 2006

2 Four Questions About Faking in Personnel Selection Contexts 1. Can people fake? 2. Do applicants fake? 3. Does faking matter? — I will talk about one project 4. What do we do about it? — I will talk about one project

3 Does faking matter?

4 Effects on Validity and Selection Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton (2003) Ss completed personality and criterion measures in lab setting Personality measure Personality measure — Achievement Motivation Inventory Criterion measure Criterion measure — A speeded ability test with no time limit — Could leave when they wanted, opportunity for normative feedback Groups Groups — Honest (n = 240) vs. faking (n = 204)

5 Means & Standard Deviations Predictor Criterion Faking Group Honest Group Effect Size

6 Criterion-Related Validity Faking Group Honest Group.17 *.05 * p <.05 Upper third.20 * Lower third.26 * * Full Groups

7 But Validity is Only Skin Deep Important to look at selection Groups were combined and various selection ratios examined Groups were combined and various selection ratios examined Variables examined Percent of selectees from each group Percent of selectees from each group Performance of those selected Performance of those selected

8 Effects on Selection Percent hired at various selection ratios Selection Ratio (%) Percent of Selectees Note: Honest made up 54% of sample

9 Effects on Selection Group performance at various selection ratios Selection Ratio (%) Performance

10 Conclusions Faking appears to have… An impact on the criterion-related validity of our predictor An impact on the criterion-related validity of our predictor — Most noticeably at the high end of the distribution An impact on the quality of decisions An impact on the quality of decisions — Low performing fakers more likely to be selected in top-down contexts

11 What do we do about faking?

12 What Do We Do About Faking? Approach 1: Detection and Correction Tries to correct faking that has already occurred Score corrections Score corrections — Not successful (Ellingson, Sackett & Hough, 1999; Schmitt & Oswald, 2006) IRT work IRT work Retesting Retesting

13 What Do We Do About Faking? Approach 2: Prevention Many prevention strategies Warnings Warnings Subtle items Subtle items Multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) response formats Multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) response formats

14 What is an MFC Format? Dichotomous quartet format Item contains four statements Item contains four statements Each statement represents a different trait Each statement represents a different trait 2 statements positively worded, 2 statements negatively worded 2 statements positively worded, 2 statements negatively worded Indicate “Most Like Me” and “Least Like Me” Indicate “Most Like Me” and “Least Like Me”

15 Example MFC Item Avoid difficult reading material (-) Only feel comfortable with friends (-) Believe that others have good intentions (+) Make lists of things to do (+) XXXX Most Like Me Least Like Me

16 MFC Formats Appears to be faking resistant (Christiansen et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2000) Example from Jackson et al. (2000) Likert-type format effect size =.95 Likert-type format effect size =.95 MFC format effect size =.32 MFC format effect size =.32

17 However…. Normative vs. Ipsative MFC measures typically provide partially ipsative measurement MFC measures typically provide partially ipsative measurement Selection settings require normative assessment Selection settings require normative assessment Also, evaluations have focused on group level analyses

18 Forced-Choice as Prevention? Heggestad, Morrison, Reeve & McCloy (2006) Two studies Study 1 – Do MFC measures provide normative trait information? Study 1 – Do MFC measures provide normative trait information? Study 2 – Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? Study 2 – Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level?

19 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? Participants (n= 307) completed three measures under honest instructions NEO-FFI NEO-FFI IPIP Likert measure IPIP Likert measure IPIP MFC measure IPIP MFC measure — Conducted three data collections to create this measure

20 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? Logic: If MFC provides normative information, then correspondence between … IPIP-Likert and IPIP-MFC scales should be quite good IPIP-Likert and IPIP-MFC scales should be quite good Each IPIP measure and the NEO-FFI should be similar Each IPIP measure and the NEO-FFI should be similar

21 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? IPIP Likert IPIP MFC NEO IPIP Likert NEO IPIP MFC Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious.Correlations

22 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? We also defined correspondence as mean percentile differences across the measures

23 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? IPIP Likert IPIP MFC NEO IPIP Likert NEO IPIP MFC Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious. Percentile Rank

24 Study 1 Do MFC measures provide normative information? Conclusions MFC seems to do a reasonable job of capturing normative trait information MFC seems to do a reasonable job of capturing normative trait information — People can be compared directly!

25 Study 2 Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? Participants (n= 282) completed three measures NEO-FFI  Honest instructions NEO-FFI  Honest instructions IPIP Likert  Faking instructions IPIP Likert  Faking instructions IPIP MFC  Faking instructions IPIP MFC  Faking instructions

26 Replication of Previous Findings IPIP Likert IPIP MFC Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Effect Sizes

27 Study 2 Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? Logic: If MFC is resistant to faking at the individual level, then… NEO-FFI (honest)  IPIP-MFC (like honest) NEO-FFI (honest)  IPIP-MFC (like honest)and NEO-FFI (honest)  IPIP-Likert (fakeable) NEO-FFI (honest)  IPIP-Likert (fakeable) IPIP-MFC  IPIP-Likert IPIP-MFC  IPIP-Likert

28 Study 2 Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? NEO IPIP MFC IPIP Likert IPIP MFC NEO IPIP Likert Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious.Correlations

29 Study 2 Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? IPIP Likert IPIP MFC NEO IPIP Likert NEO IPIP MFC Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious. Percentile Rank

30 Study 2 Are MFC measures resistant to faking at individual level? Conclusion MFC not a solution to faking MFC not a solution to faking — Can fake specific scales — Not faking resistant at individual level

31 Summary and Conclusion Faking does impact scores Changes the nature of the score Changes the nature of the score Not likely to have a big effect on CRV Not likely to have a big effect on CRV Could have notable implications for selection Could have notable implications for selection Dichotomous quartet response format does not offer a viable remedy


Download ppt "Faking in personnel selection: Does it matter and can we do anything about it? Eric D. Heggestad University of North Carolina - Charlotte Education Testing."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google