Assessment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lubin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Petren, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lubin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Petren, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 2, 101-113 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/107319119800500201
© 1998 SAGE Publications

Response Manipulation on the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised

Bernard Lubin

Rodney van Whitlock

Melinda Rea

Suzanne Petren

University of Missouri-Kansas City

The scoring pattern of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised (MAACL-R) under both "simulate good" and "simulate bad" conditions and under two instructional sets, either "simulate" (Sample 1) or "simulate with caution" (Sample 2), was studied in an experiment in which the MAACL-R state form was administered to two groups of college students, each consisting of 160 participants. Each participant was tested twice with both a baseline "actual" trial and either a "simulate bad" or "simulate good" trial with the "actual" and experimental "simulate" trials counterbalanced. Participants in Sample 2, but not Sample 1, received instructions to be "cautious so as not to be detected." As expected, the scoring pattern of the MAACL-R was susceptible to response manipulation in the predicted directions. However, instructions to "simulate with caution" did not produce significantly different scores than did instructions to "simulate" alone. In the second study, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was used to determine the utility of each MAACL-R scale to detect response simulation. For both "simulate bad" and "simulate good," the PA and PASS scales showed the highest correct classification rates. However, detection of simulating bad was more accurate than determination of simulating good.

Key Words: MAACL-R • faking bad • faking good • response manipulation • instructional set


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?