Presentation on theme: "By: Heather Lomason, Ashley Frazier & Daniel Ratti April 22, 2010."— Presentation transcript:
By: Heather Lomason, Ashley Frazier & Daniel Ratti April 22, 2010
Overview Definition of Integrity Tests Examples of Integrity Tests Advantages of Integrity Tests Disadvantages of Integrity Tests Main Controversies Surrounding Integrity Tests Limitations of the Method
Definition of Integrity Tests A paper and pencil, self-report test developed to predict employee theft potential and other counterproductive behaviors (Wanek, 1999). Used with current employees and/or pre- employment applicant screening (Wanek, 1999). Two categories of integrity tests Overt integrity tests Personality-based integrity tests
Overt or Personality-based Integrity Tests “What is the dollar amount of money or merchandise you have taken from your current employer?’ “Do you believe a person arrested for stealing from their employer should tell co-workers who helped with the theft?” ‘I am more sensible than adventurous’. ‘Have you ever thought of a way to steal something, but then changed your mind and didn’t take it?’ **Note: Questions are cited an article from Wanek, 1999**
Examples of Integrity Tests Name of MethodsDescriptions Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI) Measures honesty, tenure, drug avoidance, employee- customer relations, safety, work values and attitude toward supervision (Wanek, 1999). Application Potential Inventory (API) Inventory that uses the PSI scale, measuring a variety of job- related attitudes and other characteristics. Used to predict counterproductive work behaviors and hire high performing employees (Jones, Brasher, & Huff, 2002). Reid Report Measures conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability (Fortmann, Leslie, & Cunningham, 2002 ). Stanton Survey Measures conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. Survey items focus on individual’s history of dishonest behavior, attitudes toward theft and dishonesty; estimates the prevalence of theft (Connelly, Lilienfeld, & Schmeelk, 2006). Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB) Measures dependability, conscientiousness, self-restraint, and social conformity. (Wanek, 1999).
Advantages of Integrity Tests Validity In a study conducted on three different populations, integrity scores served as significant predictors of supervisor perception of job performance and admissions of counter productivity (Cunningham, Fortmann, & Leslie, 2002). When used as a Situational Judgment Test, this method typically serves as a good predictor of job performance (Becker, 2005). Although developed for predicting theft, integrity tests are effective also for predicting overall performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).
Advantages: Validity (cont.) A meta-analysis using 655 validity coefficients estimated a true validity of 0.41 across 7,550 people for supervisory ratings of job performance (Ones, et al.,1993). For predicting broad counterproductive behaviors, the mean operational validity of both overt and personality based integrity tests is positive and substantial (0.30´s) (Ones, et al., 1993).
Advantages: Validity (Cont.) A meta-analysis suggested that integrity test scores are predictive of job training performance (r =.38), production records (r =.28), accidents at work (r =.52), and property damage (r =.69) (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). Has an incremental validity of 0.14 when combined with cognitive ability tests (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). The multiple R of combining both is 0.65.
Advantages of Integrity Testing Reliability Little variability across reliability coefficients (0.78 to 0.82) when used across different cultures (Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa) (Cunningham, Fortmann, & Leslie, 2002). Cross Cultural Considerations The Reid Scale on data from Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa revealed results suggesting that integrity is a stable construct across cultures (Cunningham, Fortmann, & Leslie, 2002).
Disadvantages of Integrity Tests According to Ones et al. (1993), integrity tests were developed to predict theft, however they are more effective in predicting broad counterproductive behaviors. Applicants may react negatively to being evaluated on moral grounds. Personality based tests have no validity estimates for the prediction of theft alone, only for broad counterproductive behaviors (Ones, et al., 1993). Overt Integrity tests may be more closely related to behaviors than to moral reasoning.
Main Controversies Which type of integrity test provokes more negative reactions in respondents, overt integrity tests or personality-based integrity tests? (Whitney, Diaz, Mineghino, & Powers, 1999). Attention by critics has been given primarily on how integrity predicts externally measured theft, with disregard for the evidence of test validity for a wide range of counterproductive behaviors and job performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).
Main Controversies (cont.) Coaching can increase scores on the unlikely virtues (faking scale) items but little affect on the integrity test score (Hurtz & Alliger, 2002). Adverse Impact- women score.16 standard deviations higher on overt integrity tests than men but there is little difference between age differences or different ethnicities (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998).
Limitations Lack of availability of validity estimates for prediction of theft when using personality-based integrity tests (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). Many studies take place in different business settings, thus comparisons must consider the limitations this implies.
Limitations When conducting cross- cultural studies the interpretation of translated words can vary thus affecting the validity of the tests. There is still a lack of clarity as to how respondents´ perceptions of integrity test effects their subsequent performance and general attitudes.
Limitations Lack of research studying the relationship between job relatedness and integrity test performance (Whitney, Diaz, Mineghino, & Powers, 1999). Limited research on individual differences such as ethnicity in regards to perceptions of integrity tests (Whitney, Diaz, Mineghino, & Powers, 1999).
Citations Becker, T. (2005). Development and validation of situational judgment test of employee integrity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13 (3), 225-232. Connelly, B.S., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Schmeelk, K.M. (2006). Integrity tests and morality: associations with ego development, moral reasoning, and psychopathic personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14 (1), 82-86. Fortmann, K., Leslie, K., & Cunningham, M. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of the Reid Integrity Scale in Latin America and South Africa. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1), 98-108. Hurtz, G. M. & Alliger, G. M. (2002). Influence of coaching on integrity test performance and unlikely virtue scale scores. Human Performance, 15(3), 255- 273. Jones, J.W., Brasher, E. E., & Huff, J.W. (2002). Innovations in integrity-based personnel selection: Building a technology-friendly assessment. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 78 (1/2), 87-97. Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & F.L. Schmidt (1993). Comprehensive meta- analysis of Integrity Test Validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 679-703.
Citations Ones, D. S. & Viswesraran, C. (1998). Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests: Results across four large-scale job applicant data sets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 35-42. Ones, D.S. & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (1), 31-39. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Helton, W. B., Strange, J. M., & Osburn, H. K. (2001). On the construct validity of integrity tests: Individual and situational factors as predictors of test performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 240-257. Wanek, J.E. (1999). Integrity and honesty testing: What do we know? How do we use it? Blackwell Publishers Ltd,7 (4), 183-195. Whitney, D.J., Diaz, J., Mineghino, M.E. & Powers, K. (1999). Perceptions of overt and personality-based integrity tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 35-45.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.