Numerous faking warning types have been investigated as interventions that aim to minimize applicant faking in preemployment personality tests. However, studies vary in the types and effectiveness of faking warnings used, personality traits, as well as the use of different recruitment settings and participant samples. In the present study, we advance a theory that classifies faking warning types based on ability, opportunity, and motivation to fake (Tett & Simonet, 2011), which we validated using subject matter expert ratings. Using this framework as a guide, we conducted a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (k = 34) and a network meta-analysis (k = 36). We used inverse-variance weighting to pool the effect sizes and relied on 80% prediction intervals to evaluate heterogeneity. Overall, faking warnings had a significant, moderate effect in reducing applicant faking (d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.39]). Warning types that theoretically targeted ability, motivation, and opportunity to fake (d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.47]) were the most effective. Additionally, warnings were least effective in studies using recruitment settings and nonuniversity student samples. However, all effect sizes contained substantial heterogeneity, and all warning types will be ineffective in some contexts. Organizations should be cognizant that warnings alone may not be sufficient to address applicant faking, and future research should explore how their effectiveness varies depending on other contextual factors and applicant characteristics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

比较就业前性格测试中伪造警告类型的功效：一项荟萃分析。


人们对多种虚假警告类型进行了调查，作为干预措施，旨在最大限度地减少求职者在就业前性格测试中的虚假行为。然而，研究在所使用的虚假警告的类型和有效性、人格特征以及不同招募环境和参与者样本的使用方面存在差异。在本研究中，我们提出了一种根据造假能力、机会和动机对造假警告类型进行分类的理论（Tett & Simonet，2011），我们使用主题专家评级对其进行了验证。使用该框架作为指导，我们进行了随机效应成对荟萃分析（k = 34）和网络荟萃分析（k = 36）。我们使用逆方差加权来汇集效应大小，并依靠 80% 的预测区间来评估异质性。总体而言，造假警告对减少申请人造假行为具有显着且中等的影响（d = 0.31，95% CI [0.23，0.39]）。理论上针对能力、动机和造假机会的警告类型（d = 0.36，95% CI [0.25，0.47]）是最有效的。此外，在使用招聘环境和非大学生样本的研究中，警告的效果最差。然而，所有效应大小都包含显着的异质性，并且所有警告类型在某些情况下都将无效。组织应该认识到，仅警告可能不足以解决申请人造假的问题，未来的研究应该探索其有效性如何根据其他背景因素和申请人特征而变化。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。