Читать книгу - "Тесты для оценки персонала: Как принимать кадровые решения на основе данных, а не ощущений - Юрий Шатров"

the prevalence of applicant faking. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 34–52). Oxford University Press.

107. Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Schneider, D. (2014). The impact of applicant faking on selection measures, hiring decisions, and employee performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3), 47–493.

108. O’Neill, T. A., Lee, N. M., Radan, J., Law, S. J., Lewis, R. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2013). The impact of “non-targeted traits” on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 162–168.

109. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

110. Giannetti, E. (2000). Lies we live by: The art of self-deception. London: Bloomsbury.

111. Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270–1285.

Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (2006). A socioanalytic view of faking. In R. Griffith (Ed.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 209–231). Information Age Publishing.

112. Leary, T. (1983). Flashbacks: An autobiography. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher.

113. Connelly, B. S., & Chang, L. (2016). A meta-analytic multitrait multirater separation of substance and style in social desirability scales. Journal of Personality, 84(3), 319–334.

114. Maricuțoiu, L. P., & Sârbescu, P. (2019). The relationship between faking and response latencies: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 3–13.

Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Van Bockstaele, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428–453.

115. Robie, C., Risavy, S. D., Jacobs, R. R., Christiansen, N. D., König, C. J., & Speer, A. B. (2021). An updated survey of beliefs and practices related to faking in individual assessments. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 503–509.

116. Martinez, A., & Salgado, J. F. (2021). A meta-analysis of the faking resistance of forced-choice personality inventories. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 732241.

117. Speer, A. B., Wegmeyer, L. J., Tenbrink, A. P., Delacruz, A. Y., Christiansen, N. D., & Salim, R. M. (2023). Comparing forced-choice and single-stimulus personality scores on a level playing field: A meta-analysis of psychometric properties and susceptibility to faking. Journal of Applied Psychology (онлайн-публикация).

118. Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Imus, A., Hedricks, C., Roy, R., & Butera, H. (2008). Comparing personality test formats and warnings: Effects on criterion-related validity and test-taker reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(2), 155–169.

119. Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16(1), 1–23.

120. Burns, G. N., Fillipowski, J. N., Morris, M. B., & Shoda, E. A. (2015). Impact of electronic warnings on online personality scores and test-taker reactions in an applicant simulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 163–172.

Fan, J., Gao, D., Carroll, S. A., Lopez, F. J., Tian, T. S., & Meng, H. (2012). Testing the efficacy of a new procedure for reducing faking on personality tests within selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 866–880.

121. Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: Exploring how verbal ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 359–383.

122. Weed, N. C., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1990). Failure of Wiener and Harmon Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subtle scales as personality descriptors and as validity indicators. Psychological Assessment, 2, 281–285.

123. Arthur Jr., W., Hagen, E., & George Jr., F. (2021). The lazy or dishonest respondent: Detection and prevention. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 105–137.

Ward, M. K., & Meade, A. W. (2023). Dealing with careless responding in survey data: Prevention, identification, and recommended best practices. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 577–596.

124. Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101384.

125. Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101384.

126. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

127. Исследование показало, будут ли выпускники пользоваться шпаргалками // РИА Новости, 28.05.2021. https://sn.ria.ru/20210528/ege-1734531156.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

128. Burke, E. (2007). Addressing the issue of cheating and unsupervised online ability testing. Paper presented at the 13th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Stockholm.

129. PCAOB. (2022, February 24). Order instituting disciplinary proceedings: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Canada). Release No. 105–2022–002. https://pcaobus.org/news-events/news-releases/news-release-detail/pcaob-sanctions-pricewaterhouse-coopers-llp-canada (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

SEC. (2019, June 17). KPMG paying $50 million penalty for illicit use of PCAOB data and cheating on training exams [Press release]. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-95 (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

SEC. (2022, June 28). Ernst & Young to pay $100 million penalty for employees cheating on CPA ethics exams and misleading investigation [Press release]. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022–114 (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

130. India’s exam fraud bubble: 148 cases, one conviction in 11 years. (2026). The Wire. https://thewire.in/education/indias-exam-fraud-bubble-148-cases-one-conviction-in-11-years (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

131. Kantrowitz, T. M., Tuzinski, K. A., & Raines, J. M. (2018). 2018 Global assessment trends report. SHL.

132. Lott, M. (2026). TrackingAI: Monitoring AI intelligence and political bias. https://www.trackingai.org (дата обращения: 20.06.2026).

133. Holden, R. R., Wood, L. L., & Tomashewski, L. (2001). Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 160–169.

134. Messick, S., & Jungeblut, A. (1981). Time and method in coaching for the SAT. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 191–216.

135. Scharfen, J., Peters, J. M., & Holling, H. (2018). Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 67, 44–66.

136. Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 373–385.

137. Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Arnold, J. D. (2017). Retaking employment tests: What we know and what we still need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology