The covariance index method, the idiosyncratic item response method, and the machine learning method are the three primary response-pattern-based (RPB) approaches to detect faking on personality tests. However, less is known about how their performance is affected by different practical factors (e.g., scale length, training sample size, proportion of faking participants) and when they perform optimally. In the present study, we systematically compared the three RPB faking detection methods across different conditions in three empirical-data-based resampling studies. Overall, we found that the machine learning method outperforms the other two RPB faking detection methods in most simulation conditions. It was also found that the faking probabilities produced by all three RPB faking detection methods had moderate to strong positive correlations with true personality scores, suggesting that these RPB faking detection methods are likely to misclassify honest respondents with truly high personality trait scores as fakers. Fortunately, we found that the benefit of removing suspicious fakers still outweighs the consequences of misclassification. Finally, we provided practical guidance to researchers and practitioners to optimally implement the machine learning method and offered step-by-step code. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0001261 | DOI Listing |
J Appl Psychol
January 2025
Department of Psychology, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
The covariance index method, the idiosyncratic item response method, and the machine learning method are the three primary response-pattern-based (RPB) approaches to detect faking on personality tests. However, less is known about how their performance is affected by different practical factors (e.g.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTwo implicit propositional measures designed to detect faking in personality-related scales were tested across four experimental studies. Study 1 (n = 116) included the Deception Relational Responding Task and Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire as the faking-detector and target scale, respectively. Respondents were randomly assigned to faking or no-faking conditions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEduc Psychol Meas
October 2024
University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Indirect indices for faking detection in questionnaires make use of a respondent's deviant or unlikely response pattern over the course of the questionnaire to identify them as a faker. Compared with established direct faking indices (i.e.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHeliyon
September 2024
Department of Information Technology, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Majmaah University, Majmaah, 11952, Saudi Arabia.
As facial modification technology advances rapidly, it poses a challenge to methods used to detect fake faces. The advent of deep learning and AI-based technologies has led to the creation of counterfeit photographs that are more difficult to discern apart from real ones. Existing Deep fake detection systems excel at spotting fake content with low visual quality and are easily recognized by visual artifacts.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFArch Esp Urol
August 2024
Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, SO16 Southampton, UK.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!