Integrity Testing Through An Alternative Lens: A One Act Play
Dan R. Dalton and James C. Wimbush
Indiana University
That integrity testing has been subject to controversy is apparent
in a number of forums1 . The
Office of Technology Assessment suggested that there are insufficient
data to evaluate the assertion
that integrity tests predict dishonest behavior (US Congress,
1990). A task force of the American
Psychological Association (APA Task Force, 1991) concluded that
such tests have demonstrated
useful levels of validity. Recent meta-analyses reached alarmingly
different conclusions regarding
integrity test validity. One (Guastello & Rieke, 1991) finds
such testing to be wholly without merit;
another (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993) is generally
more supportive.
We, with tongue somewhat in cheek, provide a vehicle which we
hope will illustrate an
alternative lens to view certain issues attendant to the sometimes
rancorous discussion regarding the
efficacy of integrity testing. The issues raised in the following
"play," while by no means
exhaustive, do capture many of the elements that animate the debate.
Integrity Testing Through An Alternative Lens: A One Act Play
Symposium Chair: Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to this symposium
on the effective selection
of faculty members. With us today are over 150 Deans of schools
of psychology and business.
Allow me to introduce Vincent Vendor of Superior Selections, Inc.,
who will describe a new
product, the No Tenure Detector, NTD.
[Applause] Vendor: There are high costs associated with faculty
selection errors, those not
receiving tenure. Superior Selections, Inc. is the leading provider
of written integrity tests that
enable companies to selectively hire employees with fewer propensities
towards theft in the
workplace and other dysfunctional behaviors. Our new product,
NTD, is a departure for us as it
does not address these dysfunctional behaviors. Instead, it has
been developed to identify those
prospective faculty members who ultimately will not be tenured.
The NTD, at the preemployment
stage, identifies candidates with a propensity not to be tenured.
I encourage you to adopt it for use
in your institutions. Questions or comments, please?
Dean A: You provide a written instrument that our applicants complete.
We return these to your
company and you provide recommendations regarding who is more
likely to not receive tenure. Is
that essentially correct?
Vendor: Yes, but we do not advise that you base this decision
solely on the NTD recommendation.
Dean A: Understood, but you realize that a "low probability
of tenure" recommendation would
weigh very heavily; indeed, it might overwhelm other indicators.
Dean V: Are you concerned about adverse impact for the NTD? All
of us share a concern to
provide opportunities for those of all races, ethnicities, and
gender among other factors.
Vendor: We have established that the NTD does not result in adverse
impact.
Dean W: Is there documentation provided by someone not associated
with your industry
independently examining the adverse impact issue?
Vendor: No. Critically, however, the NTD provides an assessment
of candidates' tenure probability
based on a number of empirically verified factors. The NTD is
based on candidates' self-reported
attitudes about tenure, attributions about the tenure process,
and means by which others may have
received it. Also, certain elements of candidates' personality
are associated with tenurability, as are
reactions to hypothetical situations. In addition, there are relationships
between tenurability and
what we refer to as "veiled purpose" questions. On their
face, such questions would not appear to be
related to tenure at all.
Dean T: If NTDs are reliable, is it possible that a given candidate
might repeatedly "fail" as he or
she continued to try to find a faculty position?
Vendor: Absolutely. This is exactly what you would expect. This,
however, would not affect your
legitimate interest in employing only those with reasonable prospects
for tenure.
Dean V: Broken bathroom scales may be reliable, just not accurate.
Do NTDs have demonstrated
validity assessed by individuals not involved in your industry?
Vendor: Absolutely. There are dozens of studies clearly establishing
NTD validity. Moreover, a
series of independent reviews provide support for their validity.
Most recently, a meta-analysis of
NTDs concluded that average validity may be on the order of .5.
Dean V: Permit me a quibble. The reviews and meta-analytic work
have been conducted
independently, but the work on which they are based was conducted
by vendors?
Vendor: That is correct.
Dean V: Given the .5 validity level how many applicants would
not be hired because your
company said they were not tenurable when, in fact, they actually
were?
Vendor: False positives are a function of instrument validity
and the base rate of a phenomenon. If
50% of your candidates arc not tenurable, for every person who
is accurately designated as
nontenurable there will also be one inaccurately designated. Suppose
that the base rate were 25%;
then, for every person accurately designated there would be three
who were not.
Dean V: In the latter case, are you saying that the "cost"
of correctly identifying and not hiring one
nontenuarable person is denying employment to three persons who
would have made tenure?
Vendor: Yes, but remember that the actual effect on you is essentially
moot when organizations
enjoy the 100:1 or greater candidate to job ratio typical of your
institutions.
Dean V: Is it true that NTDs have been severely criticized for
their generation of false-positives.
Vendor: Yes, but that criticism is misplaced. Any NTD with non-zero
and non-trivial validity is
superior to no NTD at all.
Dean V: That argument is unassailable only if the sole criterion
for the evaluation of a selection
procedure is to reject as many potentially unsuitable faculty
members as possible It must also be
assumed, however, that there is no cost for the rejection of suitable
employees who are tenurable.
Or, alternatively, if there is such a cost, it is not one properly
borne by the institution.
Vendor: That's right.
Dean W: Is it true that a recent meta-analysis concluded that
NTDs have trivial or zero validity?
Vendor: Yes.
Dean S: Let's revisit the "non-zero validity is better than
none" perspective. The Employee
Polygraph Protection Act essentially banned polygraph use for
private sector pre-employment
selection. The "non-zero validity" argument was not
probative in that case?
Vendor: Apparently not, but the movement to ban pre-employment
polygraph testing took several
decades to reach its objectives.
Dean T: Would you anticipate that most faculty candidates would
react very badly to being told
that they were not employed based on the results of an NTD?
Vendor: Perhaps, but on advice of counsel, I strongly suggest
that you don't tell them. Your
institutions routinely decline to provide this information. whatever
the actual reasons may have
been, the briefing is likely to be a euphemism on the order of
"While we admire your credentials,
there is not a good fit...."
Dean T: Agreed, but a person who does not "fit" at one
school may fare nicely at another. Can we
agree that to be classified as nontenurable is almost certainly
stigmatizing?
Vendor: Conceded, one more reason not to tell them specifically
why they weren't hired. Any other
questions or comments? [There are none] I will be delighted to
privately discuss NTDs with any of
you. We can minimize the cost of selection errors. I hope many
of you will allow us to do just that.
***The End***
1 For recent discussion on integrity testing from a variety of
perspectives see:
Legal Aspects -- Bemis, K. E. (1989). Prohibition of pencil
and paper honesty tests: Is honesty the
best policy? Willamette Law Review, 25, 571-59; Decker,
K. H. (1986). Honesty tests: A new form
of polygraph? Hofstra Labor Law Journal, 4, 141-151; Finkin,
M. W. (1995). Privacy in
Employment Law. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs;
Hanson, G. A. (1991). To catch a
thief: The legal and policy implications of honesty testing in
the workplace. Law and Inequality, 9,
497-531; Metzger, M. B., & Dalton, D. R. (1992). "Just
say no" to integrity testing. Journal of Law
and Public Policy, 4, 9-38; Rothstein, M. A. (1991). Wrongful
refusal to hire: Attacking the other
half of the employment-at-will rule. Connecticut Law Review,
24, 97-i 46; Stone, D. H. (1991).
Pre-employment inquiries: Drug testing, alcohol screening, physical
exams, honesty testing,
genetics screening--do they discriminate? Akron Law Review,
25 367-412; Wiley, C., & Rudley,
D. L. (1991). Managerial issues and responsibilities in the use
of integrity tests. Labor Law Journal,
43 (3), 152-159; Yamada, D. C. (1993). The regulation of pre-employment
honesty testing: Striking
a temporary balance between self-regulation and prohibition. Wayne
Law Review, 39:1549-1587.
Validity Issues -- Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., &
Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of integrity
test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection
and theories of job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703; Guastello,
S. J., & Rieke, M. L. (1991). A review and
critique of honesty test research. Behavioral Science and the
Law, 9, 501-523; Sackett, P.R.,
Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for
personnel selection: An update. Personnel
Psychology, 42, 491-528; Sackett, P.R., & Decker, P.
J. (1979). Detection of deception in the
employment context: A review and critique. Personnel Psychology,
32, 487-506; Sackett, P.R., &
Harris, M. M. (1984). Honesty testing for personnel selection:
A review and critique. Personnel
Psychology, 37, 221-245.
Overviews -- American Psychological Association. (1991).
Questionnaires used in the prediction of
trust worthiness in pre-employment selection decisions: An
APA task force report; APA Task Force
on the Prediction of Dishonesty and Theft in Employment Settings.
Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association; Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D.
L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and
unresolved issues. American Psychologist, 49 (2), 112-119;
Dalton, D. R. Metzger, M. B., &
Wimbush, J. C. (1994). Integrity testing: An overview and research
agenda. In G. R. Ferris and K.
M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 12.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 125-160; Dalton D. R., & Metzger,
M. B. (1993). "Integrity testing" for
personnel selection: An unsparing perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics, 12, 147-156; Murphy,
K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole, O'Bannon, R. M.,
Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. 5. (1989). Honesty and
integrity testing: A practical guide.
Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources; US Congress. (1990).
The use of integrity tests for
pre-employment screening. Washington, DC.: US Government
Printing Office, Office of
Technology Assessment.
Independent Empirical Assessments -- Cunningham M. R. Wong,
D. T.. & Barbee, A. P.1994.
Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental
studies of the Reid report. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79: 643-658.