Faking Detection Scale – Chinese Version

Description

In recent years, an increasing number of companies are using personality tests for talent selection. Unlike ability tests, personality tests are often self-assessed, where the test-takers evaluate their own daily behaviors, making it difficult for administrators to detect the truthfulness of the responses. In the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (I/O), test psychologists refer to the tendency for candidates to deliberately exaggerate their responses on personality tests as “faking.” Due to the high frequency of faking, there remains skepticism about the effectiveness of personality tests in occupational settings (Morgeson et al., 2007). Researchers commonly address faking by embedding Social Desirability (SD) scales within personality tests to directly measure the extent of faking among respondents, thereafter employing correction or identification techniques to eliminating the effects of faking from the personality test scores. The SD scale is a measurement tool for Socially Desirable Responding (SDR).

Earlier SD scales (e.g., Edwards SD Scale, Marlowe-Crowne SD Scale) were unidimensional. It wasn’t until 1991 that Paulhus developed the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), which includes two subscales measuring self-deception and impression management. The content of the former relates to sexual and invasive topics, which respondents tend to unconsciously avoid; whereas the latter describes extreme exaggerated behaviors (e.g., “I never procrastinate”) that indicate conscious embellishment if claimed by respondents. After research conducted by Chen Xueming, it was determined that concepts related to faking can be represented in a diagram. Based on the specific nature of faking, Luo et al. developed the Faking Detection Scale (FDS). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of the scale, with an explanation rate of 54.650%. Generalizability theory assessments indicated good test reliability, with a G coefficient of 0.906 and a ϕ coefficient of 0.902. Validity was tested in a real employment context, revealing that the Faking Detection Scale is more sensitive to faking and sufficiently measures it.

Authors and Contact Email

Information not available

Purpose

To detect and measure the degree of faking in personality assessments during the recruitment process.

Test Year

Information not available

Administration Method and Scoring

The Faking Detection Scale (FDS) uses a Likert scale for responses, where candidates rate statements based on their agreement from 1 to 5.

Reliability and Validity

The test has a G coefficient of 0.906 and a ϕ coefficient of 0.902, indicating high reliability. Validity tests in an actual employment setting suggest that the scale is sensitive to faking behaviors.

Factors and Subscales

Information not available

Keywords

Faking detection, personality tests, social desirability, self-assessment, recruitment.

Items in Chinese

1. 情绪不好丝毫不会影响我的工作。
2. 我从不为自己的失误找借口。
3. 我办事从来都是客观公正的。
4. 我几乎没有和家里人吵过嘴。
5. 我每天都记录自己的心得, 反思提高。
6. 我一定不会把当天的事情拖到明天去做的。
7. 我与各式各样的人都能合作愉快。
8. 我在任何时候都能保持沉着、冷静。
9. 我做的每件事情, 注意力都是非常集中的。
10. 我做事没有半途而废的, 即使遇到困难也不会放弃。
11. 即使对我的当面批评很正确, 我也会觉得难堪。
12. 长时间地做同一件事情会令我烦躁。
13. 存在利益冲突时, 我也会有个别不利于对方的言行。
14. 对某个人有意见, 我往往不会和其开诚布公的谈。
15. 看到别人在公共场合的不良行为, 我一般不会上前制止。
16. 适当的时候, 我会占些小便宜。
17. 我想要做一些事情, 就是迟迟不肯动手去做。
18. 我有时会找借口让自己少做些事。
19. 我有时也会假公济私, 为自己人做些事。
20. 我做事情有时会虎头蛇尾。

Items in English

1. My bad mood does not affect my work at all.
2. I never make excuses for my mistakes.
3. I am always objective and fair in my work.
4. I hardly ever argue with my family.
5. I keep a daily journal to reflect and improve myself.
6. I definitely won’t procrastinate today’s tasks until tomorrow.
7. I can get along well with all kinds of people.
8. I can remain calm and composed at any time.
9. I am very focused on everything I do.
10. I never give up, even when I encounter difficulties.
11. Even when criticism directed at me is correct, I still feel embarrassed.
12. Prolonged engagement in the same task makes me restless.
13. When conflicts of interest arise, I can have behaviors that are unfavorable to others.
14. If I have a grievance against someone, I often won’t discuss it openly with them.
15. I generally do not intervene when I see someone behaving poorly in public.
16. I will take advantage of small benefits when the opportunity arises.
17. I sometimes intend to do something but delay getting started.
18. At times, I find excuses to do less work.
19. Sometimes I may favor my acquaintances inappropriately.
20. I occasionally start tasks enthusiastically but finish them poorly.

References

Morgeson et al., 2007.