MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
1.NEO-PI-R & NEO-PI-3 (PPM & NPM Scales) ( McCrae & Costa, 2010 )
2.EPQ-R Lie Scale ( Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991 )
3.16PF (5th ed.) IM Scale ( Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993 )
4.Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding /C07(Paulhus, 1998 )
5.Marlowe /C0Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( Crowne & Marlowe, 1960 )
6.Personality Research Form E /C0Desirability Scale ( Jackson, 1984 )
7.Structured Interview of Reportable Symptoms (2nd ed.) ( Rogers, Sewell, & Gillard, 2010 )
8.MMMPI-2-Restructured Form (L, K, F Scales) ( Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008 )
9.PAI (INF, ICN, NIM, & PIM Scales) ( Morey, 2007 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
Here we review several impression management and response bias scales that have been published since the
previous edition of this book (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). We also provide updated comments on
some instruments that were reviewed then as well, but which continue in widespread use. We concentrate on
several commercial multiscale inventories that include measures of response styles. The oldest of these invento-
ries, the venerable Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), now includes more measures in its lat-
est revision (MMPI-2-RF) to detect manipulative or distorted response patterns than the original version. Many
instruments intended for use with normal populations (such as the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire /C0
16PF) also include such ‘correction’ scales, although not all do so. In addition, specialized instruments to detect
feigned responding have been developed or revised over the last two decades. These measures include a struc-
tured interview to detect faking of psychiatric disorders in the criminal justice system ( Rogers et al., 2010 ). In pro-
viding comments primarily on commercially published measures, we are following what appears to be an
increasing trend to publish scales commercially rather than to make them available through the psychological
journal literature. The field of commercially published measures appears to have increased since the first edition
of this book appeared in 1991 and continues to attract broad interest.
Positive and Negative Presentation Management Scales (PPM & NPM)
in NEO-PI-R & NEO-PI-3
(McCrae & Costa., 2010 ).
Variable
The NEO-PI-3 manual itself ( McCrae & Costa, 2010 ) does not report response style measures other than to
evaluate stereotyped response patterns through scanning the response sheet. Nonetheless, Schinka, Kinder, and
Kremer (1997) analyzed the items of the earlier NEO-PI-R and formed three 10-item response styles scales, of
which Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Ma.nagement (PPM) are of interest
here (cf. Meade & Craig, 2012 ).
Description
The two Schinka et al. (1997) scales of interest are in the tradition of those designed to measure faking good
and faking bad. Both scales were formed through the selection of existing NEO-PI-R items. Blanch, Aluja, Gallart,
and Dolcet (2009) provided a summary of the research since 1997 on the PPM and NPM scales and also give the
item numbers on the NEO-PI-R. For the PPM scale, there are two items from Neuroticism, three from
Extraversion, three from Openness, and one from each of the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness domains. For
the NPM scale, two items are drawn from each of the NEO-PI-R domains. Being derived from existing NEO-PI-R
items, the PPM and NPM scales use the same 5-point Likert-type response scale. Morey et al. (2002) proposed
that stylistic responding may occur on the NEO-PI-R. The Morey et al. structural equation model provides for
both substantive and stylistic contributions of the NPM and PPM scales, with the two underlying constructs
being correlated with one another.18 2. RESPONSE BIAS, MALINGERING, AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT