Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
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
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holden, R. R.
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holden, R. R.
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR)

Ronald R. Holden

Katherine B. Starzyk

Lindsay D. McLeod

Melanie J. Edwards

Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Issues of reliability, item latent structure, and faking on the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) were examined with a sample of 300 university undergraduates. Reliability analyses indicated that scales from all inventories had acceptable internal consistency. Confirmatory item principal component analyses supported the structures and scoring keys of the HPSI and the BIDR, but not the BSI. Although all inventories were susceptible to faking, validity indices of the HPSI and the BIDR could correctly classify over two-thirds of test respondents as either responding honestly or as faking.

Key Words: Psychopathology • screening • reliability • item component structure • faking • faking detection

Assessment, Vol. 7, No. 2, 163-175 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/107319110000700208
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
K. L. Cervellione, Y.-S. Lee, and G. A. Bonanno
Rasch Modeling of the Self-Deception Scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2009; 69(3): 438 - 458.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. PsychiatryHome page
C. L. Odgers, E. P. Mulvey, J. L. Skeem, W. Gardner, C. W. Lidz, and C. Schubert
Capturing the Ebb and Flow of Psychiatric Symptoms With Dynamical Systems Models
Am J Psychiatry, May 1, 2009; 166(5): 575 - 582.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Sex AbuseHome page
L. Tan and R. C. Grace
Social Desirability and Sexual Offenders: A Review
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 61 - 87.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
D. G. Kroner, J. F. Mills, A. K. Yessine, and T. Hemmati
The Generalized Instructional Set of the Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI): Socially Desirable Responding and Faking
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, June 1, 2004; 48(3): 360 - 372.
[Abstract] [PDF]