(Social Boldness), .17 with Factor Q3 (Perfectionism) /C0(Conn & Rieke, 1994 ). Literature searches failed to identify
any simulation or known group studies of either faking good or faking bad on the IM scale of the fifth edition of
the 16PF.
Divergent/Discriminant
The IM scale correlates /C0.01 with Factor B (Intelligence), /C0.02 with Factor E (Dominance), /C0.09 with Factor F
(Liveliness), /C0.03 with Factor I (Sensitivity), /C0.39 with Factor L (Vigilance), /C0.36 with Factor M (Abstractedness),
/C0.12 with Factor N (Privateness), /C0.39 with Factor O (Apprehension), .06 with Factor Q1 (Openness to change),
/C0.21 with Factor Q2 (Self-reliance), /C0.53 with Factor Q4 (Tension). ( Conn & Rieke, 1994 ).
Criterion/Predictive
As evidence of criterion validity, the IM scale correlates approximately equally with both self-deception and
other-deception scales on the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1986 ) and with the Marlowe
Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960 ).
Location
Cattell, R.B., Cattell, A.K., & Cattell, H.E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition .
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Conn, S.R., & Rieke, M.L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual . Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.
Results and Comments
Conn and Rieke (1994) stated that studies that did report on the reliability and validity of the 16PF (5th ed) IM
scale suggest that it performs reasonably well for its purposes, since the evidence for its reliability, as well as its
convergent and discriminant validity is well-documented.
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding /C07 (BIDR IM & SDE Scales)
(Paulhus, 1998 ).
Variable
The BIDR (also known as the Paulhus Deception Scales /C0seePaulhus, 1984 ) assesses two factors of socially
desirable responding with scales of Self-Deceptive Enhancement or SDE (measuring an unconscious favorability
bias of the self) and Impression Management or IM (assessing deliberate misrepresentation to others). The BIDR
has gone through several editions, and the seventh revision was commercially published as the Paulhus
Deception Scales. Some published studies report the latter name, while others use the original BIDR-7 title.
Description
Items on each of the BIDR-7 scales were rationally constructed. The current item content for the SDE scale
focuses on the inflation, exaggeration, or enhancement of one’s personal characteristics. For the IM scale, current
items emphasize overt behavior where misrepresentation is interpreted as deliberate, conscious lying. With
a total of 40 (5-point) items (ranging from Not True toVery True ), the BIDR-7 takes only 5 to 7 minutes to
complete, requires a minimal reading level, and is appropriate for clinical and non-clinical individuals. Scoring of
the BIDR-7 scales is fairly straightforward with half of the items on each of the two scales negatively keyed
(although reverse-worded items typically are loaded by a separate factor suggesting that they measure a distinct
construct /C0see Chapter 1, this volume). All items are scored dichotomously (0 or 1) with the 20 SDE items each
having two keyed response options and the 20 IM items each having one keyed response option.
The BIDR has been translated into a number of different languages with some versions using continuous
(polytomous) rather than the dichotomous scoring approach. Vispoel and Tao (2013) reported higher coefficients
on all measures with a 7-point polytomous response scale than with a dichotomous response scale, suggesting
that a polytomous scoring system should be used ( Li & Bagger, 2007; St ˝ober, Dette, & Musch, 2002 ).22 2. RESPONSE BIAS, MALINGERING, AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT