I__. - International Military Testing Association

Overall, the results replicate the findings from our previous research. As in the earlier experiment,
the scores of soldiers given the “fake good” instructions were significantly higher than soldiers’ in the
honest condition. This shows that the “fake good’ instructions were effective in producing positive
response distortion.
Also, scores resulting from the honest and coached-with warning conditions were not significantly
different from each other. Thus, response distortion on the ASP was reduced (but not necessarily
eliminated) in the group given the ‘coached-with warning” instructions. The combination of the warning
of fake detection items and instructions not to appear “too perfect” may be responsible for this
suppression of positive response distortion.
In our extension of the research, we also examined the effect of coaching when no warning about
fake detection items is given. As shown in Table 2, soldiers in this condition had significantly higher
scores than those given the “honest” instructions. However, the scores of those in the coached-without
warning group did not differ significantly from those in the fake good condition. Thus, the aeneral
(faking) strategy (i.e., describing oneself in a way that insures being selected by the Army) and the more
soecific (coached) strategy (trying to present oneself as mature, responsible, well-adjusted, hardworking,
well organized, and easy to get along with) were equally effective in producing response
distortion. Finally, in comparison with the “coached” instructions, the addition of a warning about faking
detection items resulted in significantly lower scores on 4 out of the 6 scales. This demonstrates that the
warning was at least partially effective in reducing response distortion.
Grouo Differences in Correlations Amona ASP Scale Scores
Correlations of the Validity scale with the other ASP scales were examined in each of the four
conditions. As expected, the lowest correlations with the Validity scale were found when examinees
were responding honestly & = .20 to .37, all p-z.05). The highest correlations with the Validity scale
were found when subjects were coached or told to fake in the socially desirable direction (r = .30 to .71,
all g< .05). The correlations with the Validity scale within the coached-with warning group @ = .11 to
SO) were generally higher than the correlations found within the honest group, but smaller than the
correlations for the two other groups. This indicates that the coached-wi?h warning group distorted their
responses in a positive direction, but not as much as the faking or coached groups.
Utilitv of the Validitv Scale
for Detectina Resoonse Distortion
The purpose of the ABLE Validity scale is to identify individuals who have distorted their responses in
a socially desirable direction. We examined how effective this scale would be in correctly classifying
persons who were coached or instructed to distort their ASP responses.
Table 3 shows how well the Validity scale discriminates among the groups, for each possible cut
score that might be used to classify distorted responses. For example, with a cut score of 27, no one in
the honest group would be incorrectly classified as faking (i.e., deliberately distorting responses in a
socially desirable direction). However, this cut score would correctly classify 22% of those given the
fake good instructions, 15% of those coached, and 3% of those coached-with warnings. Thus, all
individuals in the fake good or coached conditions who were at or above the cut score would be
correctly classified as fakers. Moreover, this would be done without misclassifying anyone in the honest
group (since no one in this group had a Validity score above 26). The results also show that response
distonion among those given the coached-with warning instructions is most difficult to detect. This is
consistent with the finding that Validity scores between the honest and coached-with warning groups do
not differ significantly.