Integrity Test Presentation

1. Integrity Test Presentation By: Heather Lomason, Ashley Frazier & Daniel Ratti April 22, 2010

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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**

5. Examples of Integrity Tests

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. Main Controversies (cont.) • Coaching can increase scores on the unlikely virtues 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.

13. 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.

14. Limitations • When conducting cross-cultural studies the interpretation of translated words can vary thus affecting the validity of the tests. • Many studies take place in different business settings, thus comparisons must consider the limitations this implies. • There is still a lack of clarity as to how respondents´ perceptions of integrity test effects their subsequent performance and general attitudes.

15. 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 when regarding to perceptions of integrity tests (Whitney, Diaz, Mineghino, & Powers, 1999).

16. 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.

17. 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.