Integrity exam
Overt Integrity Tests and Personality-Based Tests
For several decades, organizations have shown a growing interest in screening job candidates who may exhibit problematic behaviors at work (counterproductive work behaviors - CWB). Integrity tests are designed for this purpose. In 1965, Guion distinguished between two types of personality tests: overt and covert. Accordingly, Sackett et al (1989) distinguished between two types of integrity tests: overt tests and personality-based tests.
Overt Integrity Tests
Overt tests were originally developed to examine attitudes towards theft and predict future theft, and were also referred to as "property deviation". These tests, also called "transparent" or "with an overt purpose", directly investigate attitudes towards behaviors that deviate from the desired norm. Overt tests are usually validated against polygraphs, where specific questions about relevant behaviors (such as theft) are asked, although more and more studies are expanding the validation criteria, such as manager ratings and HR data (Woolley & Hakstia, 1993)
Personality-Based Tests
Personality-based tests are designed to predict future theft or a wide range of counterproductive behaviors, such as abusing sick days (Woolley & Hakstia, 1993). The idea is that broad personality traits such as conscientiousness, responsibility, reliability, and not just honesty, are measured. The items assess the extent to which a person can be trusted, conformity, sensation seeking, conscientiousness, and difficulty with authority (Wanek, 1999).
Similarities and Differences Between Tests
Sackett et al (1984, 1989) distinguish between overt integrity tests and personality-based tests based on the structure and content of items. In overt tests, examinees are asked to report their attitudes towards dishonest behavior and personal history of theft or other illegal actions. Personality-based questionnaires assess attitudes and tendencies more indirectly related to integrity, i.e., assess psychological constructs that explain individual differences in behavior that deviates from the desired norm. Despite the fact that both types are supposed to measure the same theoretical construct, are widespread, and yield similar criterion validities, little is known about the relationship between them (Hogan & Brinkmeyer, 1997).
Two meta-analyses have addressed the issue of the validity of integrity tests for predicting CWB and job performance (ones et.al., 1993; Van Iddekinge et.al., 2012). It was found that overt integrity tests are more strongly associated with CWB than personality-based integrity tests. However, personality questionnaires may be a worthy alternative, and it is desirable to examine it because they also have an advantage in terms of meaning (theoretical substantive) and interpretation of scores.
According to Marcus & Ashton (2013), it seems that each of the two types of tests (integrity questionnaire and personality-based questionnaire) enhances the prediction of CWB, and therefore neither type can completely replace the other. Since the cost of these tests is incomparably lower than the financial cost of an unsuitable (not "honest") employee, it is recommended to use both types of tests to improve prediction.
By: Hadas Shapir
References:
Hogan, J., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1997). Bridging the gap between overt and personality-based integrity tests. Personnel Psychology, 50 (3), 587-599
Marcus, B., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2013). A note on the incremental validity of integrity tests beyond standard personality inventories for the criterion of counterproductive behavior. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 30 (1), 18-25
Wanek, J. E. (1999). Integrity and honesty testing: What do we know? How do we use it?. International Journal of selection and assessment, 7 (4), 183-195
Woolley, R. M., & Hakstian, A. R. (1993). A Comparative Study of Integrity Tests: The Criterion‐Related Validity of Personality‐Based and Overt Measures of Integrity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1 (1), 27-40
We would be happy to hear your opinion!