NEO-PI-3 Negative Presentation Management (NPM) Scale
31, 57 *, 104, 129, 135, 161, 168, 182, 223, 225.
Lie Scale /C0Eysenck Personality Questionnaire /C0Revised (EPQ-R L-Scale)
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991 ).
Variable
The Lie Scale included in the EPQ-R comprises 21 items. One-third of the L scale items are keyed for a positive
response (for a summary of the construction of the various Eysenck measures ( Eysenck, 1962; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1968; 1975 ), see Furnham, Eysenck, & Saklofske, 2008 ).
Description
The EPQ-R Lie scale aims to detect ‘faking good’. As such, it not only indicates dissimulation or under-report-
ing, but also has a degree of relationship to substantive measures of personality ( Holden & Book, 2012 ).
Although Eysenck has argued for a single interpretation of the L scale, two components have been suggested,
one for social conformity and the other more representative of traditional under-reporting measures ( Francis,
Philipchalk, & Brown, 1991 ). Other studies (e.g., Ng, Cooper, & Chandler, 1998 ) have supported Eysenck’s posi-
tion for a unidimensional interpretation.
Sample
In the original normative EPQ sample ( Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991 ), means of 6.8 ( SD54.14) for over 1600 males
and 7.7 ( SD54.18) for a sample of almost 2500 females were reported for the L scale. Scores on L increased with
increasing age for both men and women. The manual ( Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991 ) reported differences between
four ‘abnormal’ clinical groups (psychotic, neurotic, endogenous depressed, and prisoners) on all four EPQ
scales, with the L scale being more sensitive to these differences than were the E, N, and P scales.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) using a sample of 110 German adults (51 males; 57 females) aged 17 to 83 years
(M545.6 years, SD515.8) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .77 for the L scale. Likewise, Caruso,
Witkiewitz, Belcourt-Dittloff, and Gottlieb (2001) in their reliability generalization review of 44 studies that used
either the EPQ or EPQ-R, reported a median alpha coefficient of .77 for the L scale (ranging from .59 to .88).
Test/C0Retest
The EPQ-R manual ( Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991 ) reported test /C0retest reliability coefficients for a combined
group of students and social workers ( N5257) ranging from .61 to .90 over an interval of one month. Likewise,
Mundia (2011) reported a stability coefficient of .77 over a 5-month test /C0retest interval.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The L-scale correlates positively (.54) with the NEO-PI-R Conscientiousness scale ( Poortinga, van de Vijver, &
van Hemert, 2002 , p. 289).
Divergent/Discriminant
Discriminant validity has not really been explored in any depth for the L scale. The prolonged length of time
that the scale has been in use without serious concerns for its discriminant validity being raised supports its
interpretation as a faking good measure.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Whether the L scale measures one or two components is an issue of the construct validity of the scale. One
study ( Jackson & Francis, 1999 ) scored the two components separately with different groups instructed to fake
either in a socially desirable direction or in a socially unacceptable direction. Scores on both subscales correlated20 2. RESPONSE BIAS, MALINGERING, AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT