The limits of noncognitive assessments

Faking, motivation, and validity in higher education admissions

Dados Bibliográficos

ID22409983
AutoresTzu-Yang Chao (0000-0002-5049-5836, National Central University, autor correspondente), Yao-Ting Sung (0000-0002-3538-3756, National Taiwan Normal University)
Ano2026
Volume269
Páginas107479
Data de publicação2026-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoActa Psychologica (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0001-6918 • E-ISSN: 1873-6297
EditoraElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107479
PMID42468260
OpenAlexW4415380601
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas51

This study examines whether students could fake good on the noncognitive teacher aptitude assessment battery (TAAB) through an experiment and screening data analysis. In Study 1, 318 students randomly assigned to four groups (Faking Good, Faking Bad, Screening, and Control) completed three tests in the TAAB: situational judgment test for teachers (SJTT), work value scale for teachers (WVST), and computerized personality scale for teachers (CPST). While participants could fake good in SJTT and CPST, there was no significant difference between the Control and Screening groups. In Study 2, we analyzed data from 1287 applicants for the teacher education program and evaluated their teaching interest, teacher self-efficacy, and motivation for becoming a teacher. When teaching interest and teacher self-efficacy were controlled, none of the test scores improved with increased motivation. TAAB can be a potential tool in student teacher selection with further research required to include more appropriate indicators.

Aptitude · Big Five personality traits · Higher education · Personality · Scale (ratio) · Selection (genetic algorithm) · Situational ethics · Statistical analysis · Test (biology) · Test validity · Student Assessment and Feedback