St˝ober, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing dichotomous and continuous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding.
Journal of Personality Assessment ,78, 370/C0389.
Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. Technical manual .
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales:
Development, validation, and interpretation . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
van Hooft, E. A., & Born, M. P. (2012). Intentional response distortion on personality tests: Using eye-tracking to understand response pro-
cesses when faking. Journal of Applied Psychology ,97, 301/C0316.
Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
Personality and Individual Differences ,52, 487/C0491.
Vispoel, W. P., & Tao, S. (2013). A generalizabiility analysis of score consistency for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.
Psychological Assessment ,25,9 4/C0104.
von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences ,34,1/C056.
Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition ,
32, 1206/C01220.
Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-DM: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behavior Research Methods ,39, 767/C0775.
Walters, G. D., Rogers, R., Berry, D. T. R., Miller, H. A., Duncan, S. A., McCusker, P. J., et al. (2008). Malingering as a categorical or dimen-
sional construct: The latent structure of feigned psychopathology as measured by the SIRS and MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment ,20,
238/C0247.
Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., & Russell, E. J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet
data collection methods. Psychological Methods ,18,5 3/C070.
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reversed item bias: An integrative model. Psychological Methods ,18, 320/C0334.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods ,15,9 6/C0110.
Widows, M., & Smith, G. P. (2005). Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Wygant, D. B., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Arbisi, P. A., Berry, D. T. R., Freeman, D. B., & Heilbronner, R. L. (2009). Examination of the MMPI-2 restruc-
tured form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scales in civil forensic settings: Findings from simulation and known group samples. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology ,24, 671/C0680.
Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Stafford, K. P., & Freeman, D. B. (2010). Further validation of the MMPI-2 and
MMPI-2-RF response bias scale: Findings from disability and criminal forensic settings. Psychological Assessment ,22, 745/C0756.
Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application
of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods ,7, 168/C0190.
Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology ,84, 551/C0563.
Zickar, M. J., & Sliter, K. A. (2012). Searching for unicorns: Item response theory-based solutions to the faking problem. In M. Ziegler, C.
MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 113 /C0130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ziegler, M. (2011). Applicant faking: A look into the black box. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist ,49,2 9/C036.
Ziegler, M., & Bu ¨hner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement ,69,
548/C0565.
Ziegler, M., & Kemper, C. (2013). Extreme response style and faking: Two sides of the same coin? In P. Winker, R. Porst, & N. Menold (Eds.),
Interviewers’ deviations in surveys: Impact, reasons, detection and prevention (Schriften Zur Empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung) (pp. 221 /C0237).
Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Gmbh.
Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D.
Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3/C016). Oxford: Oxford University Press.43 REFERENCES
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT