approximately equally with the Neuroticism scale, and did not differ between themselves, although both
component subscales differed from the group taking the EPQ under standard conditions. Ferrando and
Anguiano-Carrasco (2009) reported that the Lie scale can be interpreted similarly under both instructions to
respond normally and to fake good. Generally though, the L scale appears to function as does any other measure
intended to assess faking good ( Ferrando & Chico, 2001 ).
Location
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire /C0Revised . London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Results and Comments
Although the EPQ-R Lie-Scale has not had the length of use of its equivalent MMPI faking good measure,
there is an extensive literature on its use over the various editions of the Eysenck personality measures. As a
measure of faking good intended for use with normal populations, it exhibits adequate test /C0retest reliability
(Caruso et al., 2001 ).
Impression Management (IM) Scale (in 16PF, 5th edition)
(Cattell et al., 1993 ).
Variable
The fifth edition of the 16PF incorporates three response style scales: Impression Management (IM),
Infrequency (INF), and Acquiescence (ACQ) ( Russell & Karol, 1994 ). As measures of response sets, we do not
consider further the INF and ACQ scales here. The IM scale is primarily associated with the Faking Good and
Faking Bad scales from the previous versions of the 16PF. It is the only 16PF validity scale discussed here.
Sample
A total of 2500 individuals in the general population provided norms for the IM scale as well as the other
16PF scales ( Cattell et al., 1993 ). Correlations between the IM scale and the 16PF factors were derived from sam-
ples of 2205 males and 2364 females ( Conn & Rieke, 1994 ).
Description
The IM scale comprises 12 items answered using a 3-point rating scale. Although high scores on the IM scale
may be accurate for certain individuals, they can also reflect an unconscious, idealized self-image or conscious,
deliberate faking. Conversely, low scores on the IM scale may reflect an overly critical self-image or individuals
deliberately presenting a need for attention.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Conn and Rieke (1994) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .63 ( N53,498) for the IM scale.
Test/C0Retest
For the IM scale, Conn and Rieke (1994) reported a two-week test /C0retest reliability coefficient of .70 ( N5204)
and a two-month stability coefficient of .63 ( N5159).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity for the IM scale has been demonstrated with positive correlations ranging from .49 to .54
with other scales of socially desirable responding such as the Marlowe /C0Crowne Social Desirability Scale (.54),
and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR). The IM scale correlates positively with the BIDR
Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscale (.54), and .49 with the second BIDR subscale (see Conn & Rieke, 1994 ;
Crowne & Marlowe, 1960 ;Paulhus, 1986 ). The IM scale correlates positively (.45) with the 16PF Form A faking
good scale, and .48 with Form C faking good scale. The IM scale correlates positively (.16) with Factor A
(Warmth), .50 with Factor C (Emotional Stability), .34 with Factor G (Superego), .20 with Factor H21 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT