In order to compare the effectiveness of four dissimulation detection techniques, a revised and shortened version of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was administered to 12E college students under three instructional sets. Honest, fake good, and fake bad instructional sets were used in a within—subjects design to identify dissimulation of the managerial potential scale
(Mp) of the CPI. An obvious -subtle (0-5) scale tested against the L and K scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the good impression (Gi) scale of the CPI. Subjects were randomly assigned to six counterbalanced conditions. Difference scores from the (honest - fake good) and (honest — fake bad) were computed and regressed against each detection technique. Analysis of covariance was also completed in order to correct for possible low reliability of the difference scores. The
results demonstrated that the Mp scale is susceptible to dissimulation, the best scale for identifying honest profiles was the L scale and the best scales for detecting dissimulation is the Gi or K scales. Intelligence was found to be a good predictor of faking good but not faking bad. All of the scales produce desparate impact in regards to sex. The question of whether faking good and faking bad are two different phenomena is discussed.
next to an author's name indicates that all files or directories associated with their ETD are accessible from the Virginia Tech campus network only.
![[VT]](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/images/ETD-db/restricted.gif)
