ÃÊ·Ï ¿­±â/´Ý±â ¹öư

Àڱ⺸°í½Ä ½É¸®°Ë»ç¿¡¼­ °ÅÁþ¹ÝÀÀÀ» ŽÁöÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î, ¸Ó½Å·¯´×À» Ȱ¿ëÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¼º´ÉÀ» È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ ¼ÖÁ÷¹ÝÀÀ°ú °ÅÁþ¹ÝÀÀ(±àÁ¤¿Ö°î, ºÎÁ¤¿Ö°î) Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀÀ´ä µ¥ÀÌÅ͸¦ ¼öÁýÇÏ ¿´°í, ¸Ó½Å·¯´× ¾Ë°í¸®ÁòÀ¸·Î ·£´ý Æ÷·¹½ºÆ®, Àΰø½Å°æ¸Á, ¼­Æ÷Æ® º¤ÅÍ ¸Ó½ÅÀ» Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ¼º´ÉÀ» È® ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸°á°ú, ¸Ó½Å·¯´× ±â¹ý Áß¿¡¼­µµ º¹ÀâÇÑ ÆÐÅÏÀ» °¨ÁöÇÏ´Â µ¥ °­Á¡ÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ¾Ë°í¸®ÁòÀÎ Àΰø½Å°æ¸ÁÀ» Àû¿ëÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ ±àÁ¤¿Ö°î ŽÁö Á¤È®µµ¿Í ºÎÁ¤¿Ö°î ŽÁö Á¤È®µµ°¡ °¡Àå ¿ì¼öÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸ ³µ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Æ¯Á¤ÇÑ ºÐÇÒÁ¡¼ö·Î ºÐ·ùÇßÀ» ¶§º¸´Ù ¸Ó½Å·¯´×À» Ȱ¿ëÇßÀ» ¶§ Á¤È®µµ°¡ Çâ»óµÇ¾î, °ÅÁþ¹Ý ÀÀ ŽÁö¿¡¼­ ¸Ó½Å·¯´× ¹æ¹ýÀÇ À¯¿ë¼ºÀ» È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â °æÇèÀû µ¥ÀÌÅÍ ºÐ¼®°á°ú¸¦ ¹ÙÅÁ À¸·Î ½É¸®°Ë»çÀÇ È°¿ë ¸Æ¶ô¿¡ µû¶ó °ÅÁþ¹ÝÀÀ ŽÁö ¹æ¹ýÀÌ ´Ù¸£°Ô Ȱ¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´°í, ´õ ³ª¾Æ°¡ µÎ ¹æ¹ýÀ» µ¿½Ã¿¡ Ȱ¿ëÇÏ¿© °ÅÁþ¹ÝÀÀ °á°ú¸¦ È¿°úÀûÀ¸·Î º¸°íÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹æ¾ÈÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´´Ù.

This study investigated methods for detecting faking responses in self-report psychological tests using machine learning techniques. Data were collected under both honest and deceptive conditions, and three algorithms—random forest, support vector machine, and artificial neural network—were applied for prediction. The results indicated that machine learning techniques, particularly artificial neural networks, were effective, achieving more accurate results compared to traditional methods using specific cutoff thresholds. These findings suggest that the choice of detection method may vary depending on the context of the psychological assessment. Furthermore, the study recommends combining machine learning and traditional approaches to enhance the detection of faking responses in psychological tests.



Ű¿öµå¿­±â/´Ý±â ¹öư

, , ,

Machine learning, Faking response, Self-report measures, Psychological test