English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Van Hooft and Born (Journal of Applied Psychology 97:301-316, 2012) presented data challenging both the correctness of a congruence model of faking on personality test items and the relative merit (i.e., effect size) of response latencies for identifying fakers. We suggest that their analysis of response times was suboptimal, and that it followed neither from a congruence model of faking nor from published protocols on appropriately filtering the noise in personality test item answering times. Using new data and following recommended analytic procedures, we confirmed the relative utility of response times for identifying personality test fakers, and our obtained results, again, reinforce a congruence model of faking.

Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012)