The Use of Integrity Tests for

Pre-Employment Screening

September 1990

OTA-SET-442

NTIS order #PB91-107011
Recommended Citation:

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
USE OF INTEGRITY TESTS FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING

OTA PROJECT STAFF

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson, Program Manager

Science, Education, and Transportation

Michael J. Feuer, Senior Analyst

Denise Dougherty, Senior Analyst

Priscilla Reagan, Senior Analyst*

Marsha Fenn, Office Administrator

Gay Jackson, Administrative Secretary

CONTRACTORS

Anand Desai, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Qualitative Methods

School of Public Policy and Management

Ohio State University

Judy Iwens Eidelson, Ph.D.

Clinical Psychologist

Clinical Supervisor

Department of Psychology

University of Pennsylvania

Robert M. Guion, Ph.D.

Consulting Research Psychologist

Bowling Green, Ohio

Mark G. Keiman, J.D.

Professor of Law

Stanford University Law School

James L. Outtz, Ph.D.

Industrial Psychologist

Washington, DC

Through August 1989.
Paper-and-Pencil Integrity Tests Workshop, June 12, 1989

Ms. Patricia Ambrose

Hogan & Hartson

Washington, DC

Mr. James Bassett

J.W. Bassett Company

Cincinnati, OH

Mr. Roger Borgeson

Alexander Inc.

New York, NY

Dr. Wayne Camara

American Psychological Association

Washington, DC

Robert Fitzpatrick, Esq.

Fitzpatrick, Verstegan and Cashdan

Washington, DC

Ms. Linda Goldinger

Human Resources Consultant

Atlanta, GA

Dr. Robert A. Gordon

The Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

Dr. John Jones

London House

Parkridge, IL

Dr. Joseph D. Matarazzo

Oregon Health Sciences University

Portland, OR

Ms. Marilyn Mulhall

Advance Security, Inc.

Atlanta, GA

Dr. George Paajanen

Personnel Decisions, Inc.

Minneapolis, MN

Mr. Christopher Pyle

Mount Holyoke College

South Hadley, MA

Dr. Paul Sackett

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Frank Schmidt

University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa

Mr. Mike Tiner

United Food & Commercial

Workers’ Union

Washington, DC

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and critiques provided by the

workshop participants. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

Those who assisted OTA do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report.

iv
Other Reviewers and Contributor

Dr. Gerald L. Borofsky

Massachusetts General Hospital

Boston, MA

Dr. Michael R. Cunningham

University of Louisville

Louisville, KY

Dr. Robert M. Gordon

Institute for Advanced

Psychological Training

Allentown, PA

Dr. William Harris

Stanton Corporation

Charlotte, NC

Dr. Robin Inwald

Kew Gardens, NY

Dr. Richard Reilly

Stevens Institute of Technology

Hoboken, NJ

Dr. Michael J. Saks

University of lowa

lowa City, 1A

Dr. Leonard Saxe

Brandeis University

Waltham, MA

*Through August 1990.

Dr. Neil Schmitt

Michigan State University

Dr. Andrea Solarz*

Detailee to OTA from Carnegie

Corporation of New York

New York, NY

Mr. Jack Strayer

National Association of

Convenience Stores

Alexandria, VA

Mr. William Terris

Association of Personnel

Test Publishers

Washington, DC

Dr. Christopher Webster

Clark Institute of Psychology

Toronto, Ontario

Ms. Alexandra Wigdor

National Research Council

National Academy of Science

Washington, DC

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and critiques provided by the other

reviewers and contributors. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its

contents. Those who assisted OTA do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report.

v
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ......... . 1

What are lntegrity Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Why Do Businesses Use Integrity Tests? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......3

Why ls Use of lntegrity Tests Controversial?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 4

Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Scope of This Repott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

OTA Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 7

Meanings of Validity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................8

Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........8

Quality of Research . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........9

Test Fallibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

Potential Discriminatory Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....14

Policy Directions

Chapter l- INTEGRITY TESTING FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING AND

SELECTION: BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................19

Screening for Productive and Honest Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............19

Measuring Theft and Counterproductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

WorkplaceTheft and Counterproductivity:

Explanations and Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Legal lncentives for Pre-employment Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

What are lntegrity Tests?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Overt Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Veiled-Purpose Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Traits, Attitudes, and Behavior: Some Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Situations and Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

How are lntegrity Tests Different From Other Personality Tests?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Caveats to Comparisons of integrity Tests and Personality Tests:

Additional Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

lssues of Test Scoring and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 2- INTEGRITY TEST VALIDITY: CONCEPTS AND EVIDENCE.. ....................4

Test Validity: General Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Empirical Validation of lntegrity Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,47

Method of OTA’s Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Predictive Validation Using External Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

General Remarks . . . . . . . ..

vi
Chapter 3 - POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING THE USE OF INTEGRITY TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Test Fallibility: Issues for Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Self Control and the Presumption of Innocence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

What Happens to the Misclassified?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

What Happens If Pre-Employment Integrity Tests are Not Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Potential Discriminatory Effects: Issues and Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........ 70

Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76

Further Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77

1. The Power of Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Tables

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance:

Retail Sector 22

Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance:

Hospital Sector 23

Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance:

Manufacturing Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Percentage of Employees Involved in Production Deviance:

Retail Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Percentage of Employees Involved in Production Deviance:

Hospital Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 27

Percentage of Employees Involved in Production Deviance:

Manufacturing Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Predictive Validity Studies of Overt Integrity Tests Using Detected Theft or Close

Proxy as Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Forecasting Efficiency of Integrity Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Classification and Misclassification in Five Predictive Validity Studies Using

Detected Theft or Close Proxy as Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

vii
SUMMARY
SUMMARY

An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 business establishments in the United States use honesty and

integrity tests in the process of screening and selecting job applicants for employment. Analysts

familiar with the issue believe the tests are principally used to screen applicants for nonmanagerial,

less-skilled jobs, such as convenience store employees and retail clerks. OTA has defined honesty

and integrity tests as written tests designed to identify individuals applying for work in such jobs who

have relatively high propensities to steal money or property on the job, or who are likely to engage in

behavior of a more generally “counterproductive” nature. Counterproductivity

includes types of “time theft,” e.g., tardiness, sick leave abuse, and absenteeism.

in this context often

This definition does not necessarily resolve ambiguities over the universe of tests that should

be considered integrity tests. Controversy surrounds the meanings of integrity and honesty in the

workplace; there is disagreement over whether integrity tests differ from other personnel tests in

design or in the kinds of inferences they support; and there is little relative information on how integrity

and honesty tests are actually used in hiring decisions. The debate is made more difficult because

some tests that appear on their face to be at least partially relevant to measuring integrity are not

considered by their publishers to be integrity tests, and because the tests are evolving in content and

scope.

WHAT ARE INTEGRITY TESTS?

Integrity tests are almost all paper-and-pencil

some stage of the screening and selection process.

instruments, administered to job applicants at

Some tests, which are called “overt integrity

tests,” are clearly designed to query applicants about their attitudes toward specific manifestations of

dishonesty -- theft in particular -- and about their past involvement in such behavior.2 Examples of

1. As one group of researchers has noted: “This is a rapidly changing business.” P. Sackett, L.

Burris, and C. Callahan, “Integrity Testing for Personnel Selection: An Update, ” Personnel

Psychology, vol. 42, 1989, pp. 491-528.

2. According to Sackett et al. (ibid.), these tests include the Personnel Selection Inventory

(London House), the Trustworthiness Attitude Survey (Psychology Surveys Corp.), Pre-employment

-1-
overt test questions include “how honest are you?, “ “how prompt are you?,” and “do you think it is

stealing to take small items home from work?”

‘Personality-based measures” or “veiled purpose tests” may not contain obvious references to

theft or other specific counterproductive behaviors, but are purported to be based on meaningful

underlying constructs and to yield results that are meaningful to psychologists and psychometricians. 3 Examples of these questions are “how often do you blush?”, “do You make Your bed?”,

and “how often are you embarrassed?”4 True-false questions include “you are more sensible than

adventurous,” “you work hard and steady at whatever you undertake,” “you love to take chances,” and

“you would never talk back to a boss or a teacher.”5

It is important to note that publishers gauge the effectiveness of both types of tests in terms of

similar outcome criteria: reduction of workplace theft and/or reductions in other counterproductive

behaviors. Publishers of integrity tests (and many employers) increasingly argue that honesty and

integrity in the workplace should be defined broadly, to include various types of counterproductive

behavior as well as outright theft of money, property, or merchandise.

Moreover, some items on integrity tests, and the constructs they purport to measure, bear

some similarity to items and constructs found in other psychological personality tests that are not

typically considered integrity tests by their publishers or by independent reviewers. There is

disagreement in the field regarding the criteria by which to distinguish honesty and integrity tests from

the broader family of personality tests.

-2-
WHY DO BUSINESSES USE INTEGRITY TESTS?

Integrity tests are used for several reasons. First, test publishers, some employers, and some

researchers believe that the use of integrity tests can stem employee theft and counterproductive

behavior. According to some estimates, losses from such actions may be quite high in some

business settings. It is very difficult to estimate employee dishonesty accurately, in part because of

the lack of agreement on what dishonesty means: some definitions are limited to stealing money

and/or property, while others include various other forms of “workplace deviance,M6 especially

lateness, abuse of sick leave, participating in strikes, and absenteeism (which are referred to as “time

theft”). One industry-based estimate of annual losses to U.S. businesses from 11 nonviolent crimes,

including but not limited to employee theft, vandalism, and bribery, was $40 billion per year. 7

Second, there has recently been increased concern over so-called “negligent hiring” lawsuits,

in which plaintiffs seek damages for losses attributed to employers’ hiring of dangerous or

incompetent employees. While integrity test publishers do not necessarily claim that their instruments

can detect potentially violent or hazardous behaviors, they do suggest that firms can point to the use

of integrity tests as evidence of a broad strategy of conscientious pre-employment screening. 8

Third, if machine-scorable paper-and-pencil tests are accurate and reliable, they can be costeffective tools for employee screening.9

-3-
Fourth, a boost to the development and marketing of integrity tests came from the 1988

Federal ban on polygraph testing in most private establishments. It is widely believed that this

prohibition led to a renewed interest in the use of paper-and-pencil instruments, which existed as early

as the 1920s (but were seldom used until several decades Iater) .10

WHY IS USE OF INTEGRITY TESTS CONTROVERSIAL?

Honesty and integrity tests are controversial: concerns have been raised about both their

effectiveness and the consequences of their use.

Effectiveness

There is a strong incentive for businesses to use pre-employment screening and selection

tools that have been demonstrated to reduce the proportion of new employees who are likely to

commit theft or other acts of counterproductivity at the workplace. Were integrity tests established as

effective, they could be beneficial to many businesses (assuming they could be shown to achieve the

stated objectives at lower cost than alternative methods).

Test publishers and some employers and researchers argue that integrity tests are effective,

i.e., that they can be useful in reducing the proportion of new employees who are likely to commit theft

or counterproductivity. Others argue that they work poorly, if at all. While most researchers agree that

the individual studies conducted to date could be much improved, there is disagreement over the

implications of the existing body of research taken as a whole. The debate is fueled further by critics

who challenge the underlying concept that integrity tests are purported to measure, and who are

therefore not convinced by findings of validity studies based on those constructs. ’

Practical Guide (Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources, 1989), pp. 2-8. On the growth of

integrity test use in the wake of the ban on polygraph testing, see also Sackett et al, op. cit., footnote

1, pp. 491,492,496-498.

-4-
For the most scholarly reviews of the evidence on effectiveness of integrity tests, readers may

wish to read in full two documents frequently referenced in this text and fully cited in footnotes. They

are Sackett, Burris, and Callahan, Integrity Testing for Personnel Selection: An Update and

O’Bannon, Goldinger, and Appleby, Honesty and Integnly Testing: A Practical Guide.

Consequences

Integrity tests, like all tests, are imperfect, and can result in erroneous inferences about

individual test takers. Integrity test publishers argue that error of some kind is always a problem with

imperfect selection procedures, and that compared to other screening and selection devices (such as

interviews or credit checks) their tests result in relatively fewer errors. Critics, on the other hand, point

to the lack of sufficient research data upon which to make credible comparisons of the errors resulting

from the use of various hiring procedures. In addition, they argue that erroneous test inferences could

result in the denial of employment to large numbers of honest persons, an outcome that could violate

social and ethical mores as well as certain !egal principles. ’2

A related source of controversy turns on the argument over whether dishonesty or propensity

to counterproductivity are labels that carry more negative weight than the labels derived from other

personality and cognitive ability tests. Integrity test publishers tend to minimize the importance of the

potential social stigma resulting from the use of their instruments, on the grounds that test takers are

usually not informed of their test results and that information provided to employers is kept from public

disclosure. Critics worry about the effects of these labels, which can result from imperfect test

instruments: if individuals learn their scores it could affect their morale and subsequent behavior; and

even if scores are revealed only to employers, and not to test takers, they could influence employers’

attitudes (and behavior) toward certain employees in ways that could undermine rather than enhance

individual and organizational productivity.

dishonesty.” Leonard Saxe, “The Social Significance of Lying,” paper presented to the American

Psychological Association, Boston, MA, August 1990.

12. A distinction can be drawn between prediction and measurement error in tests, which is

largely a psychometric problem, and errors in classification and hiring of job applicants, which is a

problem in the way test inferences are translated into personnel decisions. These issues are

discussed in greater detail in the Findings section of this chapter as well as in subsequent chapters of

this report.

-5-
The question of how integrity tests could affect members of minority groups is another source

of controversy. The test publishers rely on their research to argue that the tests do not result in

“adverse impact.” Critics challenge both the quality of the research and the technical definition of

adverse impact.

Another point of contention concerns the scoring of tests and reporting of results. Integrity

testing critics are concerned that test results are usually presented in terms of simple dichotomous

breakdowns such as “recommend/not acceptable,” and that the tests are marketed in large part to

companies lacking the psychological and statistical training necessary to interpret more sophisticated

results. Although the test publishers warn against reliance on test results as the sole basis for hiring

decisions, critics question whether these admonitions are followed in practice, especially in the light of

publishers’ marketing literature stating that their tests can reduce workplace theft and other

counterproductive activity.

Finally, critics charge that tests may violate legal and ethical standards of privacy, especially

because the tests often ask personal questions not obviously related to job performance, and

because there are no protections against possible misuse of test data. Testing proponents argue that

privacy is largely a subjective matter, and that available evidence suggests most job applicants do not

mind taking integrity tests. More survey research could be useful in informing this issue. Moreover,

some proponents argue that improvements in the employer’s ability to reduce dishonest behavior

serve the goals of business efficiency and national productivity, and thus justify potential intrusions of

privacy.

Both sides can marshal quantitative and qualitative data, and there is no obvious or easy

reconciliation of the opposing arguments.

THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

In response to a request from the House Committee on Education and Labor, OTA examined

available evidence on integrity tests, with emphasis on two basic questions:

-6-
1. Has the research on integrity tests produced data that clearly supports or dismisses the

assertion that these tests can predict dishonest behavior’?

2. What public policy issues are raised by the use of integrity tests for pre-employment

screening and selection?

OTA METHODOLOGY

1. OTA studied the two most current reviews of the integrity testing literature,13 as well as

reviews of individual tests published in major test review compendiums. ’4

2. OTA reviewed copies of tests provided by leading publishers.

3. OTA reviewed studies (conducted by major integrity test companies) using detected

theft and counterproductivity as criteria. OTA was asked not to cite any studies not

published in journals.

4. OTA conducted interviews with a number of experts on various aspects of testing. Some

of these experts are intimately familiar with integrity testing, others specialize in related

testing issues.

5. As in any OTA Report, comments were solicited from a wide range of reviewers on

various aspects of the study, and on various drafts of the document.

-7-
MEANINGS OF VALIDITY

This Report does not contain a simple conclusion on the “validity” of integrity tests. To the

general reader, validity usually has a straightfo~ard meaning: something that is valid works -- it can

be fully relied upon. Scientists use the term validity differently. A test may be defined by some as

valid if research demonstrates that the test can predict an outcome somewhat more accurately than a

random procedure. However, most scientists also consider many other factors in evaluating validity --

test structure, research design, and consequences of use. OTA determined that characterizing

integrity tests as either “valid” or “invalid” is likely to be misleading to many readers given the varying

definitions of this term. Chapter 2 of this Report explores in detail the many components and aspects

of evaluating validity.

FINDINGS

1. The research on integrity tests has not yet produced data that clearly supports or

dismisses the assertion that these tests can predict dishonest behavior.

Credibility

Most research on integrity tests has been conducted by investigators working for integrity test

publishers, and has not been replicated by independent researchers. Situations such as these, with

stakeholders controlling performance and dissemination of research, necessarily raise caution flags.

Some independent research projects have recently been initiated. If these projects are carefully done,

the credibility problem of currently available data and analyses could be ameliorated.

-8-
Quality of Research

The two teams of scholars who have examined in depth the research studies on integrity tests

are cautiously optimistic about the quality of the research. One of these teams notes that the scope

15 both make clear that certain basic and quality of validity studies has improved over the past 5 years;

methodological difficulties have not been surmounted.

Other researchers take stronger positions, on both sides. One prominent personnel

psychologist believes that while integrity tests are far from perfect, they are better than any available

16 Another expert in personnel alternative for screening and selecting of honest job applicants.

selection and validation research reaches a fundamentally different conclusion: “The central

methodological flaw in these [predictive validity] studies is the failure to establish the construct validity

of the criterion measures." 17

Integrity test publishers, too, advocate more and better research. But they believe the

existing research to be adequate as a basis upon which to stake their claim for the usefulness of their

products; they prominently display this in marketing literature and users’ guides, and in presentations

to interested parties.

OTA did not evaluate the progress of the research over time, but did identify numerous

methodological difficulties. Some of these difficulties pertain to integrity test research specifically,

others are more general problems in personnel research. While difficulties in conducting tightly

controlled experiments in workplace settings have always beset industrial psychological research,

these are exacerbated in the case of integrity tests by problems in defining the behaviors of interest

and the criteria by which to confirm them. First, there are many definitions of theft, and not all acts of

theft are equally pernicious. Second, it is difficult to detect theft, which complicates the evaluation of

links between predictors (test scores) and criteria (theft). Third, studies focusing on broader

definitions of counterproductive behavior, such as absenteeism, lateness, terminations, or

supervisors’ ratings of productivity, ought to be methodologically less vulnerable to definitional and

15. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 1.

16. Dr. Robert Guion, personal communication, August 1990.

17. James L. Outtz, “The Validity and Reliability of Integrity Tests,” OTA contractor report, Nov. 27,

1989. This report contains proprietary information made available by test publishers on the condition

it not be made public; the report is therefore not available.

-9-
detection problems. But there is room for substantial improvement in the design and conduct of these

kinds of studies as well. External criteria such as supervisory ratings of performance and turnover

data have been questionable, and the effects of specific situational variables need to be accounted for

more rigorously in research designs.

Given the paucity of independent confirmation of research results, problems identified

in published reviews and in OTA’s review of a sample of validity studies, and unresolved

problems relating to the definition and measurement of the underlying psychological

constructs, OTA finds that the existing research is insufficient as a basis for supporting the

assertion that these tests can reliably predict dishonest behavior in the workplace.

Il. Errors in test results, potential discriminatory impact, and potential violations of

privacy raise important public policy issues pertaining to the use of integrity tests.

Test Fallibility

Integrity tests, like all tests, are imperfect. Honest persons can “fail,” i.e., they can score

below some cutoff level or relatively low in a continuous ranking; and dishonest persons can “pass.”

Erroneous inferences from tests do not necessarily translate directly into erroneous classification and

selection decisions; but it is common in the literature of testing and selection to refer to such errors as

“misclassification” or “imperfect classification," 18 especially when the tests are marketed as tools to aid

.

in personnel decisionmaking.

Despite misgivings about the quality of the research, OTA analyzed existing studies in order to

determine the potential of integrity tests for predicting honest and dishonest behavior in the

workplace.

Theft Studies

Predictive validity studies using theft as a criterion (and in which all test-takers were hired)

report that from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of those passing the tests (i.e., identified as honest)

18. See, for example, The National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, From Gatekeeper

to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America (Chestnut Hill, MA: 1990).

-10-
were later found to have stolen from their employers, meaning that upwards of 94 percent of those

identified by the test as honest were not subsequently detected committing theft. However, these

studies also reported that from 73 percent to 97 percent of those failing the tests (i.e., identified as

potentially dishonest) apparently did not steal from their employers either and were incorrectly

identified by the tests. The overall misclassification rate -- defined as the number incorrectly identified

as honest or dishonest as a percentage of the total sample -- was in the range from 18 to 63 percent in

the studies OTA examined (see chapter 2 of this Report, especially table 9).

Counterproductivity Studies

Test publishers argue that theft in the workplace is extremely difficult to detect,19 and that

among the large proportion of apparently honest individuals -- who the studies suggest are

misidentified by the tests -- there may in fact be unknown numbers of truly dishonest persons who

steal from their employers.20 Moreover, the test publishers point out that losses from various types of

counterproductive behavior that do not necessarily involve overt theft of cash or property can be

significant.

For these reasons integrity test publishers have expanded their research agenda to include

studies using a range of more common counterproductive behaviors as criteria. The statistical results

of these studies have been reported in two ways: one, in terms of correlation coefficients that serve as

measures of association between integrity test scores and one or more indicators of

counterproductive behavior; and two, in terms of percentages of honest and dishonest individuals

who are correctly and incorrectly identified by the test.

Correlational studies21 reported correlation coefficients in the range from 0.16 to 0.62, with all

but two falling below 0.35.22 From studies reporting correlation coefficients alone, however, it is not

possible to ascertain the proportions of honest and dishonest individuals correctly and incorrectly

19. The studies OTA reviewed found that from 2 to 10 percent of employees hired were later

found to commit theft. See ch. 2.

20. Estimates of the numbers of persons misidentified vary depending on the “base rate” of theft,

i.e., the true prevalence of theft.

21. Predictive studies only (and not concurrent validity studies), as reported by Sackett et al., op.

cit., footnote 1. OTA was provided with numerous unpublished studies using a broad range of

counterproductive behaviors as criteria, but was asked not to report the results of any specific studies.

Therefore, OTA used the reports provided to analyze the methodology used by test publishers to

conduct such studies, and relied on Sackett’s published article for specific results. See ch. 2 of this

-11-
identified by the tests. Three studies in which the necessary data were reported found that from 18 to

29 percent of counterproductive individuals (i.e., those terminated for cause) had been incorrectly

identified by the test; two of these studies found that 22 percent and 29 percent of individuals not

found to be counterproductive had failed the test.

Implications of Test Fallibility

As noted above, these results are based on flawed studies, and OTA believes the results to be

inconclusive. One very important datum -- the overall “failure” rate of individuals taking integrity tests

also varies widely according to the available research: the proportion of individuals who take the

test. and fall below the cut score23 ranges from 30 to 60 percent.24 This result has obvious

implications for an organization’s human resources policy: “. . . in order to use an integrity test, an

organization must be in a position to turn away a large proportion of applicants,”25 many of whom are

very likely to be honest.

This leads to the question of why misclassification of honest individuals is particularly

onerous. First, honesty and integrity are highly value-laden concepts that cut to the core of basic

concepts of morality. Identifying an individual as “at high risk to commit dishonest acts” almost

certainly carries a greater stigma than does the classification of an individual in other terms, e.g.,

relatively low cognitive abilities: the latter may channel the individual toward certain kinds of jobs not

requiring those specific cognitive skills, but there are virtually no jobs for which dishonesty would be

either required or desired.

A second problem of classification error from integrity tests has to do with the question of

whether honesty exists as a trait, and whether, if it exists, it is immutable. There is disagreement

among psychologists about the extent to which honesty is an individual trait and the extent to which it

Report for a fuller accounting of these studies.

22. In a properly specified multiple regression model, these results would translate to a range of 3

to 38 percent of the observed variance in counterproductive behaviors predictable from the test

scores.

23. Cut scores can vary considerably depending on the test under consideration, characteristics

of the workplace and desires of the client, the size of the applicant pool at any particular time, and

other factors. For discussion of problems related to setting of cut scores in general, see, e.g.,

National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, op. cit., footnote 18.

24. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 1, p. 522.

25. Ibid.

-12-
is situationally determined; and there is uncertainty over its persistence. Comparison with cognitive

tests can be illustrative. First, the construct measured by a test of verbal or mathematics ability, for

example, is “. . . much better understood because it is supported by an enormous research base

which over many years has woven links between cognitive traits and the performance of

interest. . . ."26 Second, people who demonstrate low verbal or math ability on a test presumably can

benefit from remedial work and increased study -- they can try to improve their skills in the domain of

interest 27 Similarly, individuals who perform poorly on honesty tests could, Presumably) seek

.

professional counseling or somehow change their thinking. But the question is whether genuine

changes in underlying character would be reflected in subsequent tests: for example, the answer to a

question like “did you ever steal” would be the same despite an individual’s successful transformation

into an honest person. 28 On a math test, however, an individual who has mastered a skill since failing

the first test would, presumably, answer the relevant questions more successfully on subsequent

attempts.

A third issue concerns the likelihood of systematic misclassification. If integrity tests are

reliable (in the sense that individuals’ scores do not vary significantly over time), as the test publishers

claim, then their use could create a population of persons who are repeatedly misclassified, and

systematically denied employment without cause. Alternative methods to screen out dishonest job

applicants, such as subjective interviews or letters of reference, are also imperfect instruments. They

are, however, less likely to be as consistently wrong for specific individuals. Assuming even a modest

error rate, widespread use of integrity tests could deny opportunity to many individuals.29

26. Alexandra Wigdor, personal communication, July 1990,

27. In this context it is useful to consider the controversy over the use of IQ tests, which turns in

part on the degree to which general intelligence is assumed to be innate. See, for example, M.

Snyderman and S. Rothman, The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy (New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Books, 1988); H. Gardner, Frames of Mind (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1983); and R.

Sternberg, The Triarchic Mind (New York, NY: Viking, 1988).

28. In fact, if on the first test the individual lied about prior theft, then his or her repentance could

conceivably lead to truthful disclosure on the second test -- and to a lower score. -

29. This outcome depends on the extent to which a single test is used for classification and/or

the degree of correlation among different tests. The absence of comparative studies to determine

how well different tests perform is a major deficiency of the research literature. Dr. Robert Guion,

personal communication, August 1990.

-13-
Finally, integrity tests carry a scientific imprimatur -- they are marketed with literature

proclaiming their “experimental validation” -- therefore substantially intensifying an individual’s burden

of proving that misclassification has occurred. Thus, while a virtue of the tests is their attempt to

reduce the prevalence of subjective biases that might contaminate other screening and selection

processes, the result can be more severe for individuals who are misclassified.

One response of test publishers to concerns over misclassification of honest people is to

claim that even though employers using the tests may reject large numbers of honest people, they will

still benefit from a reduction in employee dishonesty. This conclusion assumes that the available data

are correct. As noted above, OTA has found that available data are insufficient to ensure such claims.

Potential Discriminatory Effects

An important concern about the effects of integrity tests is whether members of various

ethnic, racial, or gender groups could suffer from discrimination in hiring as a result of test results.

This is particularly important with respect to protected groups in society, and much of the research

that has been conducted on discrimination has focused on so-called “adverse impact” considerations.

A widely used convention in determining the presence of adverse impact is the “4/5th rule,” which

stipulates that a hiring rate for a minority group that is less than 80 percent of the rate for the majority

will be regarded as evidence of adverse impact of the hiring system.

According to the available research, integrity tests do not violate this standard, although there

appear to be differences in the mean scores of various groups. However, there is debate over the

appropriateness of the 4/5th criterion in making judgments of discrimination, and the courts may be

shifting their stance toward more stringent statistical criteria to use in ruling out adverse impact. If that

were to occur, more research would be necessary to resolve the question of discriminatory impact of

integrity tests, including substantial reanalysis of existing data.

Other questions complicate this issue. First, it is not clear whether adverse impact can refer

to tests, or whether there must be evidence of test scores leading to differential selection rates. If

discrimination refers to selection, evidence would be required on the precise role of test scores in

-14-
employers’ hiring decisions; such evidence does not yet exist in the aggregate, and there has not

been a court case in which the effects of an integrity test, per se, were adjudicated.

Because of the existence of some confusion over the appropriate standards by which to

assess discrimination, as noted above, it is important to point out that even if discrimination were

defined as differences in test scores without necessarily being linked to selection, there would remain

the question of which standards to apply in deciding whether observed differences in group

performance constitute adverse impact. In the light of these uncertainties over legal interpretations,

and because the available data -- which come from test publishers’ studies -- are ambiguous on how

members of different ethnic, racial, and gender groups perform on integrity tests, OTA concludes that

additional research is required in order to inform policy deliberations concerning discrimination and

adverse impact.

Privacy Issues

Integrity tests require job applicants to disclose information about themselves that is of a

personal nature, that may not be related to honesty or to the jobs for which they are applying, and that

they might not choose to disclose in other settings.

Privacy is a fundamental value in American society. But it is difficult to define and

conceptualize. Recurring ethical issues related to privacy appear in the debate over integrity testing:

boundaries between individuals and others, the responsibility of individuals and organizations in

respecting privacy, and definitions of so-called “invasive” questions are difficult issues to resolve.

At present there is no apparent protection to prevent the sharing or dissemination of this

information.

POLICY DIRECTIONS - A FRAMEWORK OF QUESTIONS

Policy considerations for integrity testing are complex and difficult. At present, integrity

testing is an entrepreneurial activity, lacking any regulation or formal oversight. Standards issued by

the American Psychological Association and the American Test Publishers Association can serve only

-15-
as a guide to practice. Employers seek both freedom to choose employee selection methods, within

the bounds of employment law, and assurance that screening practices are effective and acceptable.

Available information generated by scholarly reviewers can assist sophisticated readers; marketing

materials and general articles in magazines and newspapers can present a confusing picture to the

general consumer.

In addition, Congress is faced with a situation in which little data exist on the actual extent and

nature of use of these tests. There is no agreement on the amount of loss that business absorbs each

year from employee dishonesty, and no agreement on the proportion of the population likely to

engage in “dishonest behavior” under various circumstances. As pointed out in this report, there is

disagreement among personnel test publishers as to which of their tests are integrity tests, and it is

not clear that a simple definition could be constructed to fairly identify these instruments.

The crux of the policy problem confronting Congress is to weigh:

● the potential gains to business of an effective pre-employment screening and selection

instrument, and therefore gains to society;

● the potential harm to individuals, to business, and to society of instruments that do not

correctly identify individuals; and

● the disagreement within various research and stakeholder communities over the existing

research data.

These statements make clear that Congress is faced with difficult value judgments in

determining whether to take any action on this issue, and if so, what actions to take. The words of a

leading testing and measurement expert are fitting:

-16-
The point is that in evaluating test use in selection and classification, one should

not focus on one value basis -- even the value perspective of the decisionmaker -- to

the exclusion of all others. To do so engenders too narrow a validation inquiry and

reduces our sensitivity to side effects that are likely to be seen as adverse by other

value positions. . . .30

OTA suggests that policymakers consider at least the following questions in their deliberations

on integrity tests:

1. Are the potentially harmful effects of the use of integrity tests justified by evidence of

sufficiently high net gains in business efficiency and productivity growth?

2. If tests are to be used, are standards of evidence needed to approve or certify specific

tests? Upon whom should the burden of proof for effectiveness fall?

3. What type of evaluation criteria and experimental conditions would be needed for

research that more fully resolves the technical controversy over these tests?

4. Is there a role for the Federal Government in fostering incentives for independent

research? Is there a Federal role in securing greater access to existing test industry data,

either for independent researchers or for a regulatory body?

5. What are the rights and obligations of test publishers, employers, and test-takers

regarding information generated by these tests? How secure should individual test

scores be? Do these tests require full disclosure of intent to test-takers?

6. Do the privacy questions raised by these tests justify any particular examination by

Congress?

30. S. Messick, “Validity,” Educational Measurement, R. Linn (cd.), 3rd ed. (New York, NY:

Macmillan, 1989), p. 87. Messick’s essay addresses the importance of values in testing generally -- it

does not focus on integrity testing.

-17-
7. Does Congress wish to obtain more information on actual test use and application?

Would this include the role of test scores in the job selection process, or only aggregated

test results?

8. If regulation is needed, who should regulate? Integrity tests are similar in some ways to

a number of other tests now in use. Are all employment screening tests to be regulated,

or only integrity tests? Can integrity tests be identified adequately to be regulated?

9. What kinds of evidence are needed for Congress (or the courts) to be assured that there

is no adverse impact stemming from the use of integrity tests? Need the research

providing these data be conducted by other than integrity test publishers?

-18-
Chapter 1

INTEGRITY TESTING FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING

AND SELECTION: BACKGROUND
Chapter 1

INTEGRITY TESTING FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING AND SELECTION:

BACKGROUND

SCREENING FOR PRODUCTIVE AND HONEST EMPLOYEES

Hiring new workers is always risky. Applicants who are selected may turn out to be less

productive than expected, while those rejected might have proven productive if given the chance.

Although the costs to employers of the first type of error are more readily observable, both types can

undercut the productive efficiency of a firm. Firms have an incentive to minimize the costs caused by

hiring unproductive workers as well as the costs of denying employment to workers who would have

become productive.

Since the early 20th century, a number of psychological tests have been developed to assist

employers in making personnel decisions. For example, following the development of intelligence

tests at the turn of the century, and their application by the military to recruit and assign soldiers

during both World Wars, the use of personality and cognitive ability tests in industry became

widespread. 1 Pressures on organizations to select and place employees more carefully have

increased with specialization of job categories, high rates of employee turnover, concerns about

worker productivity, workplace theft, increased liability and insurance costs, and drug and alcohol use

on the job;2and the impetus to use more effective screening techniques has grown with the

-19-
development and marketing of new written, physiological and chemical tests designed for use in

personnel screening.3

Measuring Theft and Counterproductivity

With a growing awareness of the prevalence of workplace theft and counterproductivity, many

employers are interested in prospective employees’ honesty, indebtedness, prior convictions, drug

and alcohol use, health, and dependability, in addition to their prior education and specific job skills.

These hiring concerns were always a high priority for employers, and have spurred the search for

innovative and effective ways to deal with employee dishonesty; and the possibility that reducing theft

and counterproductivity could play a role in restoring the Nation’s aggregate economic performance

has gained credibility.4

It is important to distinguish attempts to measure the prevalence and incidence of theft from

attempts to explain its origins and/or cures. 5 Neither issue is easily answered. The measurement

problem is plagued by the fact that “. . . try as they might, businesses do not have any reliable

statistics on the amount of employee theft and other forms of workplace crime [and] we are forced to

make educated guesses regarding the scope of the problem.”6 Nevertheless, some research efforts

are often cited. The American Management Association (AMA), in a frequently cited study conducted

in 1977 at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, estimated annual losses to U.S. businesses

-20-
from 11 nonviolent crimes (including employee theft, vandalism, and bribery) in the range of $40

billion.7 Of the nonviolent crimes studied, AMA estimated that employee pilferage accounted for

between $5 and $10 billion.8 These estimates were used by the Bureau of National Affairs in a 1988

study showing a dramatic increase in losses from theft over the 1975 data: “. . . annual economic

losses to U.S. business from employee theft ranges from $15 billion to $25 billion per year.”9

A comprehensive analysis of workplace theft was funded by the National Institute of Justice.10

Based on a survey of over 9,000 employees in the retail, hospital, and manufacturing sectors,

including 47 corporations in three metropolitan areas (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cleveland, and Dallas-Ft.

Worth), this study found that 35 percent of employees responding in the retail sector reported some

involvement in some type of theft (see table 1), 33 percent in the hospital sector (table 2), and 28

percent in the manufacturing sector (table 3). ” Reported figures for involvement in production

-21-
Table 1-- Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance

Retail Sector (N = 3,567)

Involvemen t

Almost Once 4-12 1-3

Items daily a week times/year times/year Total

Misuse the discount privilege 0.6 2.4 11.0 14.9 28.9

Take store merchandise 0.2 0.5 1.3 4.6 6.6

Get paid for more hours

than were worked 0.2 0.4 1.2 4.0 5.8

Purposely under-ring

a purchase 0.1 0.3 1.1 1.7 3.2

Borrow or take money

~ from employer without

, approval

Be reimbursed for more

money than spent on

business expenses

0.1

0.1

Damage merchandise to buy

it on discount ---

Percentage of employees involved

in one or more of the above

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.2

2.0

1.3

1.0

2.7

2.1

1.3

35.1
Table 2- Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance

Hospital Sector (N = 4,111)

I evolvement

Almost Once 4-12 1-3

Items daily a week times/year times/year Total

Take hospital items

(e.g., linens) 0.2 0.8 8.4 1 7.9 27.3

Take or use medication

intended for patients 0.1 0.3 1.9 5.5 7.8

Get paid for more hours

than were worked 0.2 0.5 1.6 3.8 6.1

1

y Take hospital equipment

or tools 0.1 0.1 0.4 4.1 4.7

Be reimbursed for more

money than spent on

business expenses 0.1

Percentage of employees involved

in one or more of the above

0.2 0.8 1.1

33.3
Table 3- Percentage of Employees Involved in Property Deviance

Manufacturing Sector (N = 1,497)

Involvemen t

Almost Once 4-12 1-3

Items daily a week times/year times/year Total

Take raw materials used

in production 0.1 0.3 3.5 10.4 14.3

Get paid for more hours

than were worked 0.2 0.5 2.9 5.6 9.2

Take company tools

or equipment --- 0.1 1.1 7.5 8.7

Be reimbursed for more

money than spent on

business expenses 0.1 0.6

Take finished products --- ---

Take precious metals

(e.g., silver, platinum

and gold) 0.1 0.1

Percentage of employees involved

in one or more of the above

1.4

0.4

0.5

5.6

2.7

1.1

7.7

3.1

1.8

28.4
deviance, which included taking long lunch breaks and misusing sick leave, were even higher: 64

percent in the retail sector, 69 percent in the hospital sector, and 82 percent in the manufacturing

sector (see tables 4, 5, and 6).

Workplace Theft and Counterproductivity: Explanations and Remedies

As compelling as these statistics appear, they may obscure certain fundamental questions

about the nature of theft and other forms of workplace deviance -- their origins and causes -- which

could play an important role in devising appropriate management and public policy responses. The

strategy inherent in integrity testing is to identify individuals with relatively high propensities to commit

theft or other counterproductive acts. This reflects a view that some people are inherently more

honest (or dishonest) than others.

However, other experts emphasize the organizational and situational influences on behavior.

In addition, the question is made complicated by differences in the definition of dishonest behavior at

the workplace. For example, some experts regard theft on a continuum of production and property

deviance: the former includes acts such as participating in strikes, coming to work late, and abusing

sick leave, and the latter refers to pilferage, embezzlement, sabotage, and stealing of property. ’2

Second, there are many factors that can stimulate these acts. Some researchers argue that

"

. . . most incidents of [theft] are unrelated to an employee’s particular economic situation. . . ,"13

although there is still extensive debate on this subject. Another factor, job dissatisfaction, seems to be

more important: “. . . employees who felt that their employers were dishonest, unfair, and uncaring

about their workers were significantly more involved in theft and other forms of workplace deviance.”14

A very important question about workplace deviance, then, is the relative effects of individual

propensities, on the one hand, and characteristics of the work environment or situation, on the other.

Although this is a specific instance of the debate between “traits and states” that continues to occupy

psychological researchers, 15 there appears to be widespread agreement that it is useful to discuss

12. Hollinger, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 34.

13. Ibid., p. 21.

14. Ibid., p. 23.

15. This issue is discussed in greater detail below.

-25-
I

-26-
-27-

theft and workplace deviance with reference to situational as well as individual variables. A good

example of accounting explicitly for the effects of management decisions is found in a discussion of

sick leave abuse: “. . . if management should institute strict controls over sick leave abuse, we may

discover that people simply leave early or come in late or have friends ‘clock them out’ without their

physically being at work. Or, if management tries to increase productivity without a corresponding

increase in wages, we might expect to find employees compensating themselves informally through

theft and pilferage."16 Thus, while there are strong incentives to screen out job applicants with a

"

. . . predisposition to excusing or rationalizing theft behavior . . . ,"17 the importance of supervisory

personnel creating an atmosphere conducive to honesty and productivity seems at least as

important. 18 According to this view of theft and other deviant acts, “. . . the ‘crime in the workplace’

perception of employee theft is usually incorrect. Employee theft is a management problem, not a

crime problem.”19

There are other sociological factors that can enrich the discussion of workplace deviance.

For example, some scholars have pointed to the effects of work group norms on theft levels. One

study found that “. . . the men who loaded and unloaded ships ‘taxed’ cargo in transit by stealing a

●

percentage of the ship’s contents . . . ,“ and concluded that “. . . this informal system of worker

rewards is so pervasive that it constitutes a substantial ‘hidden economy’ found in every society

around the world.”20 A special case has been documented in which management actually

encouraged certain forms of employee theft: “A number of researchers have observed instances of

16. Hollinger, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 35.

17. Ibid., p. 41.

18. According to Hollinger (ibid.), pre-employment integrity testing is”. . . perhaps the single most

important step that an organization can take . . .“ (p. 41), but the author also notes that “. . . perhaps

the single most effective tool in reducing employee theft is for supervisory personnel to set a good

example. . . .“ (p. 42). OTA did not assess the comparative advantages of these basic approaches,

but notes that if they were found to be equally effective, then a comparison of their social and private

costs would be an important criterion in deciding whether to implement them. An equally important

question is whether the use of tests enhances or detracts from management’s efforts at creating a

productive environment.

19. Ibid., p. 33.

20. Ibid., p. 24.

-29-
supervisors allowing productive employees to take from the organization as an unauthorized ‘perk’

rewarding high productivity.”21

Legal Incentives for Pre-employment Screening

Employers’ incentives for improved screening go beyond their desire for productive and

honest workers, and may be driven also by the need to protect themselves from a variety of legal

actions.= For example, under “negligent hiring” doctrine, employers may be liable for the wrongful

actions of their employees, even if the action occurred outside the scope of employment, if employers

do not exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining competent and safe employees.23 While

standards for reasonable care are still being developed, some employers believe that use of integrity

tests might bolster their case in a negligent hiring suit, and some integrity test publishers concur with

this strategy. However, whether courts will accept this defense remains unclear. To date there has

not been a published negligent hiring case in which an employer’s defense rested on the use of paperand-pencil integrity tests, few integrity tests claim to predict violence, and since most negligent hiring

suits involve violent behavior by employees, it is not clear that tests to screen thieves (or people who

miss work or get to work late) would ever be germane.

-30-
WHAT ARE INTEGRITY TESTS?

Integrity tests are viewed by employers as one tool in the armamentarium of personnel

screening techniques, which can also include other tests of personality and/or cognitive ability,

background checks into criminal history and credit records,24 reference checks, blood or urine

tests,25 handwriting analysis, and personaI interviews. These tests, almost always paper-and-pencil

instruments, contain, either in whole or in part, questions about an individual’s attitudes toward theft

and other deviant or illegal acts, and questions about an individual’s prior involvement in such

behavior. Answers to these queries lead to inferences about the test-taker’s propensity to commit

workplace theft and/or other counterproductive acts.

Some tests, which are called “overt integrity tests,” are clearly designed to query applicants

about their attitudes towards specific manifestations of dishonesty -- theft in particular -- and about

their past involvement in such behavior. 26

To better understand the nature of questions that typically appear on integrity tests, consider

the following examples:27

Overt Questions

● “How often do you tell the truth?”

● “Do you think that you are too honest to take something that is not yours?”

● “How much do you dislike doing what someone tells you to do?”

-31-
●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

“Do you feel guilty when you do something you should not do?”

“Do you think it is stealing to take small items home from work?”

“Do you believe that taking paper or pens without permission from a place where you

work is stealing?”

‘What percentage of the people you know are so honest they wouldn’t steal at all?”

“How many people have cheated the government on their income tax returns?”

“How easy is it to get away with stealing?”

“in any of your other jobs, was it possible for a dishonest person to take merchandise if a

dishonest person had your job?”

“Do you believe most employers take advantage of the people who work for them?”

“Do you think company bosses get away with more illegal things than their employees?”

Veiled-Purpose Questions

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

True or False: Eating right is important to my health.”

“True or False: 1 like to create excitement.”

"True or False: I like to take chances.”

“On the average, How often during the week do you go to parties?”

“True or False: lam usually confident about myself.”

"True or False: A lot of times I went against my parents’ wishes.”

“1 feel lonely even when I am with other people {all of the time, most of the time,

sometimes, almost never, never}.”

“How often do you blush?”

“How often do you make your bed (everyday, never, etc.)?”

“How many people don’t you like?”

“Are you an optimist?”

Whether or not tests question applicants overtly about behavior and attitudes related to

honesty, they now almost all rely on a broad range of behaviors as measures of their effectiveness.

The distinction between overt and veiled-purpose integrity tests appears to be disappearing. A review

-32-
of the marketing information from publishers of the more overt tests indicates that the constructs

these tests are said to measure are becoming less precise; in many cases, “theft” is broadening to

include “theft and other forms of counterproductive behavior. ” In addition, publishers of the original

“honesty” tests appear to be expanding their portfolios to include tests intended to measure a range of

attitudes and predict a range of behaviors.

Traits, Attitudes, and Behavior: Some Basic Concepts28

The debate over integrity testing revolves around interlocking issues of test design, use, and

effects. One focal point of the debate is the question of whether dishonesty is a personality trait. If a

test is designed to measure the degree to which an individual possesses this trait, however, there

remains the question of how the trait is linked to specific behaviors of interest. It is at least

theoretically possible for individuals to be identified as possessing a trait called dishonesty without

their necessarily committing theft or other counterproductive acts in the workplace. Indeed, this has

led some psychologists to question the very basis of integrity tests: “It is a substantial leap of faith to

label [individuals’] responses [to questions on integrity tests] as probative of their future honesty or

dishonesty. . . .“29

It can be argued, however, that integrity tests are designed strictly to help employers weed

out job applicants who are relatively likely to commit certain undesirable behaviors, including but not

limited to stealing, and that the existence of definable personality traits is irrelevant. This might be

called a more purely predictive model, in which test questions that work well in predicting behavior

under experimental conditions are kept and those that do not contribute useful information are

discarded. Pure predictive empiricists would claim that they are only mapping answers to behaviors,

and not measuring any particular traits. While such tests inevitably contain at least some questions

that appear to suggest personality types, they are not necessarily based on any particular

28. This section is based in part on Mark Kelman, “A General Framework for Evaluating

Classification Errors, With Special Reference to Integrity Testing,” OTA contractor report, June 26,

1990.

29. Leonard Saxe, “The Social Significance of Lying, ” paper presented to the American

Psychological Association, Boston, MA, August 1990, p. 14.

-33-
psychological theory of personality.

Under either of these conceptualizations of what is being tested, an important question arises

as to the relative efficacy of attitudinal and behavioral questions in predicting future behavior. On the

one hand, there is empirical and theoretical support for the notion that intention is a strong predictor

of behavior.

30 Assuming that individuals answer questions about their feelings regarding certain types

of action with candor, and assuming further that these answers can be interpreted as reflecting intent,

it may be possible to draw inferences about the likelihood of certain behaviors being committed in the

future. 31

By and large, however, prior acts are generally assumed to be better than beliefs or intentions

as predictors of future acts. Test questions based on prior behavior are therefore based on a different

empirical model, one which assumes that people tend more or less to keep acting the same way they

have been acting. For example, persons who have stolen before are, probabilistically at least, more

likely to steal in the future than those who have never stolen before (which is perhaps why detectives

typically start their search for suspects by considering evidence linking a crime to known -- rather than

new -- criminals). The validity of integrity tests based on these questions, then, depends in large part

on whether admissions of past acts are a reasonable surrogate for actual past acts. It is difficult to

assess the accuracy of self-report data in the absence of objective benchmarks.32 Moreover, if

admissions-based data are accurate, then people who confess to prior acts are reporting honestly.

They might be probabilistically more likely to commit the undesirable behavior of interest in the future,

however, and this makes the interpretation of such tests particularly complicated. (It is important to

keep in mind that integrity tests do not usually rely on questions about prior behavior alone.)

30. See, for example, 1. Azjen, “Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior

in Personality and Social Psychology, ” Advances in Experimental Social Psvchology, vol. 20, 1987, pp.

1-63. This article reflects a stronger position on the role of attitude and intention from that taken in an

earlier work. See 1. Azjen and M. Fishbein, “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and

Review of Empirical Research, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 84, 1977, pp. 888-918.

31. OTA did not assess the extent to which attitude questions on integrity tests would be

considered as questions of “intent,” and found no research that addressed this issue specifically.

32. On the reliability of admissions data, see Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 26, pp. 517-519. In

this context it is worth noting that although some predictors of criminality might be more accurate

than personality-based ones -- see, for example, Herbett Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction

(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968) -- they are not necessarily admissible as criteria for

selection: in other words, predictive validity is not the sole criterion for determining the uses of

screening instruments. See, e.g., Kelman, op. cit., footnote 31; or Nelkin and Tancredi, op. cit.,

-34-
Purely predictive tests, as well as those aimed at identifying theoretical psychological traits,

can consist of both attitudinal and behavioral questions. Attitudinal questions probe beliefs and

feelings about dishonesty, counterproductivity, and/or other even seemingly unrelated attitudes.

Behavioral questions seek to correlate prior acts -- overtly related to honesty -- with future ones.

Situations and Behavior

An important point regarding the predictive ability of integrity tests concerns the relative

importance of individual personality variables and environments in explaining behavior. Despite

efforts to declare the debate over,33 psychologists continue to disagree on their relative importance.

34 In any event, it ‘s And this general debate has extended into the more specific area of honesty.

unclear to what extent integrity test publishers take seriously the effects of situations on personal

behavior. One spokesman for the integrity test industry claims that “. . . integrity test publishers

typically assume that dishonesty is a relatively stable personality trait, but that counterproductive

behavior can be influenced by a variety of situational factors. ”35 There have been no studies of

integrity tests in which organizational level variables have been fully integrated. These variables are

difficult to define, and integrity test publishers are not alone in encountering this methodological

problem.

35. John Jones, London House, personal communication, July 1990.

-35-
HOW ARE INTEGRITY TESTS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PERSONALlTY TESTS?

While there are still some integrity tests that purport to predict theft alone, as noted above, the

majority appear to be marketed as instruments designed to assess a wider range of personality traits

and to predict a wider range of behaviors. Publishers of integrity tests (and many employers) now

increasingly argue that honesty and integrity in the workplace should be defined broadly, to include

various types of counterproductive behavior as well as outright theft of money, property, or

merchandise. Moreover, some items on integrity tests, and the constructs they purport to measure,

bear some similarity to items and constructs found in other psychological personality tests.

Thus, with respect to criteria (i.e., outcomes of interest) and predictors (test constructs) it is

sometimes difficult to distinguish honesty and integrity tests from the broader family of personality

tests: in fact, one integrity test publisher has argued that “there is no fundamental conceptual

difference between integrity tests and other personality tests,” such as the Sixteen Personality Factors

Test (16PF), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and the California Psychological

Inventory (CPI).36 Nonetheless, there are differences among these latter tests and between any one

of them and an integrity test.

It is commonly agreed that integrity tests are tests of personality, as they claim to measure an

individual’s propensity to behave in certain ways. But the professional and academic literature on

integrity tests is ambiguous on the question of whether integrity tests are somehow special within this

broader family. The leading academic and professional reviewers37 note that most tests now include

more than just honesty scales, which, at least until very recently, clearly distinguished them from other

tests 38 But these reviewers also imply that integrity tests are different from other Personality tests and

-36-
that they ought to be considered in a class by themselves. For example, a comprehensive directory

of available integrity tests omits several widely used personality tests, despite certain similarities in

question content and scope.39 One is therefore left with the impression that experts continue to sense

important differences between integrity tests and other personality tests, but that the differences are

difficult to pinpoint.

This issue of deciding which tests are integrity tests and which are not seems to ignite

considerable debate and acrimony. Some tests include items or scales seemingly related to honesty

generally (if not in the workplace); but the publishers of these tests assert -- often quite vehemently --

that they are not integrity tests. For example, one test designed and used for screening law

enforcement applicants includes the item: “1 have to admit it, I once took money from an employer,”

and a scale called “Trouble with the Law and Society.” In validation research on this test, criteria such

as turnover, absences, lateness, and disciplinary actions have been used.40

Nevertheless, the developer of this test does not consider it an integrity test, primarily

because it has never been validated using theft as a criterion and because it is not intended for

41 similarly, the Army’s ABLE test, which predicting theft or screening out potential thieves per se.

contains measures designed to predict turnover, is not considered an integrity test by its developers,

the claims of some integrity test publishers notwithstanding.

This point of contention has more than just academic interest. Policymakers contemplating

possible regulatory action must keep in mind the formidable barriers to defining precisely what tests

would be included and under which criteria.

-37-
Even if honesty tests resemble personality tests because they share some common items or

scales, they are somewhat distinguishable by the scope of their questions and by the nature of their

intended uses. Thus “. . . personality and interest tests seek to measure motivation . . . ,"42 and

"

. . . with few exceptions [these tests] have not been developed for use as employee selection

techniques. Personality tests are typically intended . . . to identify broad personality dimensions or

mental disorders . . . [while] interest tests are used to provide people with information about their

preferences for various activities, and, in turn, such information can be of assistance in making

personnel choices.”43 When personality tests are used, they can provide information on such matters

as individual interests, which presumably can be helpful in assigning people to appropriate jobs.

While in practice they are also sometimes used for personnel selection (i. e., for hire/no hire

decisions), that use is considered controversial. Honesty tests are specifically designed and marketed

for selection of applicants and not for their assignment to particular jobs.44

Caveats to Comparisons of Integrity Tests and Personality Tests: Additional Considerations

As stated earlier, some integrity test publishers tend to compare their products with several

widely used personality tests, and claim they are identical in most important aspects. OTA believes

this claim to be weak. Consider, for example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI), a widely used and validated personality test, originally designed for use in identifying clinically

significant levels of psychopathology. The test was validated on a clinical sample of psychiatric

inpatients, and while it has been applied to “normal” populations, these applications have raised a

controversy within the psychological community. The recently added subscales intended specifically

for use in employment screening have not been validated independently and have been controversial

as well.45

42. Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing, 6th ed. (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 523.

43. Heneman et al., op. cit., footnote 39, p. 336.

44. For honesty tests to be useful in assigning individuals to jobs, one would have to assume that

some jobs (or some employers) have less need for honest workers. To illustrate this point, suppose

one’s interest in classical music suggested a poor match for work in a video arcade; it would not

necessarily rule out work in a concert hall. But one’s “high risk of committing theft” would likely be

undesirable in any job, which suggests why misclassification from honesty tests may be especially

troubling. See ch. 3 for discussion.

45. One source of controversy is the face validity of these scales, which closely resembles

-38-
Even the user’s manual for the MMPI-2 reflects the controversy over using the test for normal

populations, and cautions that “. . . preemployment screening [is justified] for positions for which

clinical personality assessment is recommended, namely, positions involving public safety and trust,

and those in which personality factors affect the performance of hazardous jobs. . . ."46

.

Moreover, even in high-risk environments where the MMPI can be deemed acceptable, it is

not to be used as the sole instrument of selection. Individuals applying for sensitive jobs who test

negative on the MMPI are usually subjected to additional screening.47 It is not clear to what extent

business establishments rely exclusively or principally on integrity test scores.

The proprietary nature of integrity tests is another distinguishing characteristic that raises

problems. Unlike the MMPI, for example, for which item banks and scoring keys (the templates used

to interpret raw scores) have generally been available to independent researchers, the content and

48 critics argue that as long as scoring algorithms of integrity tests have been more closely held.

integrity tests remain proprietary, it is unlikely that the research base will improve substantially, either

in quantity or in credibility. It is important to keep in mind, however, that test publishers believe that

the effectiveness of their instruments could be jeopardized if the contents were made public; this, they

would argue, could cut revenues and constrain their resources available for research and test

innovations.49

-39-
Issues of Test Scoring and Use

Another aspect of integrity tests that may help distinguish them from other personality tests is

the manner in which they are scored and their results presented to clients. Honesty and integrity tests

on the market today can be scored by the test publisher or the employer. Although no statistics have

been gathered on scoring procedures for the available tests, the impression is that slightly more than

one-third offer both on-site and publisher scoring, and less than one-third offer only one of either

. option. 50

An important issue concerning the scoring of tests and reporting of results arises in light of

the fact that “. . . integrity tests are marketed in large part to nonpsychologists . . . ,“51’ who may be

inadequately equipped to interpret the results. For example, most publishers who score the tests

themselves provide an interpretation of test performance in terms of “recommend/not acceptable. ”

Although individual propensities to act dishonestly or counterproductively are often classified in more

than two dichotomous risk categories, the intent is that employers -- with professional guidance from

test vendors -- use these classifications in making hiring decisions. While psychometrician and some

test publishers recognize that continuous score distributions are superior to such classifications, the

latter are easier to interpret and are therefore more compelling to employers.52

and weeding out of flaws in the test instrument. Some long-time users and advocates of the MMPI

have expressed their dismay over the recent commercialization of the revised version of that test, and

its direct marketing as a personnel selection device. Integrity test publishers, on the other hand,

believe that innovations and improvements in their tests are furthered, not impeded, by the potential

for financial reward; and that ultimately both the producers and consumers of integrity tests are better

off in this arrangement, because publishers assume responsibility for the psychological interpretation

of their tests (based on an interview with John W. Jones, London House, June 26, 1990). OTA did not

analyze these issues in full. The American Psychological Association has recently created a task force

to look into various aspects of commercialization in psychological research, and its findings will

undoubtedly be useful to policymakers.

50. Linda Goldinger, personal communication, 1990.

51. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 26, p. 523.

52. For continuous score distributions to yield meaningful inferences about differences in risk

level among applicants with different scores, additional information is required (the standard error of

measurement). But this information is rarely given and even more rarely understood by

nonpsychologists or psychologists without adequate training in statistics.

-40-
It is important to point out that test inaccuracy in itself is not a measure of actual misclassification of job applicants, but rather provides a measure of the potential harm that could result if test

results were the dominant or sole criterion for selection. Few experts would argue with the publishers’

warning that test scores should not be the sole basis for hiring decisions.53 Whether these

admonitions are followed in practice, however, is questionable, and seem to be confounded by claims

in publishers’ marketing literature “proving” that tests -- without reference to other elements of hiring

decisions -- can reduce workplace theft and other counterproductive activity. The role of tests in

reaching hiring decisions remains largely unknown. Although similar arguments could be advanced

regarding any test for which discrete classes of performance, rather than continuous scores, are

repotted, the categories often provided for integrity tests -- “at risk to commit theft,” e.g. -- may be

particularly influential in hiring decisions (see box 1).

-41-
Box 1

The Power of Test Results

One question that warrants careful empirical investigation is how employers use different

kinds of test-based information. For example, some observers argue that the seductive nature of

quantitative data, generated from “scientifically validated” studies, could induce employers to base

their hiring decisions solely or primarily on test scores. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical test,

which provides information on a range of 18 personality traits from “interpersonal style” and “caring” to

“natural v. logical problem solving style.” The intent of this instrument is to provide clues to rather

complex psychological traits, not all of which are clearly defined or necessarily consistent with one

another. While the test might supply some useful information to employers, particularly for meeting

certain job needs, it is not intended as the basis for a dichotomous “hire/no hire” decision.

But now suppose there were a “19th” factor added to the list, called “dishonesty” or “proclivity

to violence.” Given that no employer wants dishonest or violent workers -- regardless of other

cognitive or interpersonal attributes -- this variable could very well dominate the list. The scientific

imprimatur associated with scoring this factor would be likely to make any employer reluctant to hire

someone with this ranking. To a large extent this is why many psychologists who advocate the

cautious use of any personality test in selection are concerned over the apparent ease with which

integrity tests can be misused.

End of Box

-42-
Chapter 2

INTEGRITY TEST VALIDITY: CONCEPTS AND EVIDENCE
Chapter 2

INTEGRITY TEST VALIDITY: CONCEPTS AND EVIDENCE

Perhaps the first and most often asked question about integrity tests is whether they are valid.

This question is not easily or intuitively answered. At its simplest, the question means “do the tests

work?” -- or, “do people who do well on the tests actually tend to act ‘honestly’ more than those who

do poorly?’

Beneath these rather obvious questions are layers of subtle problems that have challenged

generations of psychologists and other social scientists: Is dishonesty a character trait? If so, is it

permanent and does it manifest similarly in all workplace settings? Can written tests effectively and

reliably expose the presence of the trait (if it exists) and/or an individual’s propensity to commit

certain behaviors of interest? Why probe attitudes, intentions, or feelings if evidence of past behavior

is available and is considered a powerful predictor of future behavior?

Because the answers to these and related questions can influence decisions affecting many

people, they raise a set of formidable public policy concerns (see also chapter 3). And even if one

wished to concentrate on the purely empirical question -- how well do the tests do what they are

purported to do? -- the research challenge is impressive. Gathering evidence to compare the

behavior of individuals with different test scores, drawing statistically valid inferences (predictions)

from those scores about individual propensities to act in certain ways, and establishing reasonable

levels of confidence in those predictions require a mobilization of sophisticated analytical methods.

This chapter discusses these issues and reviews empirical research on the validation of

integrity tests. Discussed first are general issues in validity: What is meant by validity and what are

the important issues in test validation? Construct validity, content validity, predictive validity, test

reliability, and the internal validity (research design) of studies designed to demonstrate test validity

are described, as well as the relatively new concept of consequential validity. In the next section,

studies designed to evaluate the construct and predictive validity of integrity tests are described and

discussed. Particular attention is paid to issues of the quality of the research that has been

conducted.

-43-
TEST VALIDITY: GENERAL ISSUES

Although intuitively appealing, the implied definition of validity in the opening sentences of this

chapter is not, technically speaking, correct. For it is not a test, per se, which is valid or invalid; rather

it is the set of inferences drawn from a test: “Validity is an overall evaluative judgment, founded on

empirical evidence and theoretical rationales, of the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and

actions based on test scores.’” In common parlance it is customary to refer to a test’s validity in

either-or terms: either the test is valid or it is not. But measurement theorists now recognize that

validity is a form of evaluation, of a number of issues, and that the result of the evaluative process is a

sense of the relative strength or weakness of the inferences drawn from test scores. These varieties of

evaluative information, which measurement scientists have attempted to group under various

headings such as “content” or “construct” or “criterion-related” validity, come together in an

"

. . . argument [that] must link concepts, evidence, social and personal consequences, and values.”2

In a word, then, the best that can be said about any test is that attempts to validate it yield persuasive

and acceptable inferences.3

Test theorists have identified several components of validation, and while”. . . the 30-year old

idea of three types of validity. . . is an idea whose time has gone. . . ,“4 the ideas underlying “content,”

“construct,” and “criterion-related” validity are still very much part of the psychometrician’s arsenal. 5

-44-
The construct validity of an instrument is the extent to which one can be sure it represents the

construct which it seeks to measure. “A test with good construct validity can be considered a

substitute for actually observing a person displaying a skill or attitude in everyday Iife."6 Content

validity refers to the “representativeness” of the sample of questions on a test, i.e., the extent to which

they cover the construct or constructs being measured. “High content validity means that the test

‘maps onto’ the collection of possible questions by sampling representatively from its various

manifestations. . . .“7

Both of these aspects of test validity are internal criteria, i.e., they relate to the construction of

the test. To determine whether a test measures what it claims to measure, it should also satisfy

external criteria: for example, how well the test mimics scores on established and reputable tests that

are used to measure similar constructs would be one indication of its ability to measure what it claims

to measure. But that would not be sufficient. It is more important to”. . . find out whether it correlates

with other things implied by [what the test claims to measure] and whether it is uncorrelated with

things irrelevant to that claim.”8

When a test is intended for selection, the most compelling aspect of its validity is the extent to

which test scores correlate with later behavior. “Predictive validity,” therefore, occupies a central

place in discussions of personnel testing in general and of integrity testing in particular. A variant on

predictive validity is the so-called “concurrent validity” approach, in which predictors and behaviors

are measured at the same time. “Typically, concurrent validity data were taken as evidence that a

newly proposed test, or a brief version of an existing test, was measuring a given trait if it correlated

strongly with another test already acknowledged to be a measure of that trait . . . concurrent validity

was, and still is, held to be useful for predictive purposes if it could be demonstrated, or argued

convincingly, that scores on the test would not change systematically during the period between the

-45-
time when the test might have been given as an actual predictor and the time when criterion data

would normally become available.”9

In addition to these aspects of validity, which pertain to the usefulness of a test as a

decisionmaking aid, researchers have begun to incorporate the notion of “consequential” validity in

their studies. As argued by one prominent measurement theoretician, “. . . judging whether a test

does the job it is employed to do . . . requires evaluation of the intended and unintended social

consequences of test interpretation and use.”10 Note, however, the link between consequential

validity and other aspects of validity: if adverse consequences can be ascribed to some aspect of

score distributions (such as ethnic differences), “. . . which would directly reflect on the functional

worth of the selection testing, . . . [the question becomes] whether the adverse impact is attributable

to construct-relevant or construct-irrelevant test variance or to criterion-related or criterion-unrelated

test variance. . . .’”

Another important feature of a test instrument is its so-called “reliability,” which reflects

"

. . . the extent to which measurement results are free of unpredictable kinds of error.’”2 For instance,

repeated administrations of a test to the same sample of subjects should yield similar scores. Note

that while a valid measure is always reliable, the opposite is not necessarily true: reliability does not

necessarily imply validity.13 Underlying the concept of reliability is the notion of a “true score,” i.e., the

score that an individual would obtain on a test as a reflection of his or her propensities or abilities.

However, when the test is administered, the score falls within some range around this "true” score,

and measures of reliability are generally based on estimates of the variability in the observed score

around the true score.14

11. Ibid., p. 40.

13. A broken watch is very reliable -- it always tells the same time. But because it provides no

information about the real time, it is not valid.

-46-
A related issue is the sensitivity of a test: a test should yield results that can identify

differences between two individuals, but it should also not give wildly divergent scores for two fairly

similar individuals. A test that is not sensitive to differences is not useful in discriminating between

individuals; but an overly sensitive test can lose some of its reliability.

An important consideration in understanding all efforts at test validation is the quality of the

research conducted. A valid study design contributes to the confidence that can be placed in a

study’s results. issues of the quality of a research design are generally known as internal validity. The

level of internal validity is the extent to which the relationships detected in a study are not spurious,

that is, due to factors not accounted for in the study. Among the factors that may undermine internal

validity are: poor sample selection, the occurrence of events during the course of a study that affect

the outcome variable in unanticipated ways, nonindependence of observations, and unintended

15 Appropriate use of statistics is another important effects on a research subject of being measured.

aspect of study design.

Finally, a critical consideration in determining the quality of any research is the quality and

depth of the research report. Because science is a systematic process for creating and disseminating

new knowledge, research reports should provide sufficient detail to enable independent scientists to

evaluate the credibility of the reported results.

EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF INTEGRITY TESTS

General Remarks

It should be clear from the foregoing discussion

complex process, requiring a balance of subjective

determination of construct validity often relies heavily on

theoretical constructs to be measured in order to identify

that validation of any test or treatment is a

judgment and scientific evidence. The

the opinion of experts who must define the

the presence or absence of specific human

traits. Content validation involves the assessment of how well test questions correspond to these

-47-
constructs. Criterion-related validation requires the implementation of the test and the subsequent

determination of how the test compares with other measures of the same constructs (to assess

“concurrent validity”) or how well the test predicts behaviors or actions it is supposed to forecast

(“predictive validity”). Concurrent and predictive validity studies require the identification of one or

more “criteria,” i.e., variables that serve as indicators of the types of behavior under study. Finally, all

steps in the process should reflect generally accepted principles of valid research design and should

be repotted in enough depth so that the research process is clear to readers.

For integrity testing, validity is especially problematic because integrity and honesty are

extremely difficult constructs to define with sufficient precision to enable empirical measurement. On

the one hand, the temptation to stick to easily defined acts of dishonesty, such as theft, is stymied by

the relatively low frequency of detected theft and, therefore, its limited use as an external criterion.

Extending the definition, however, to encompass a wider range of behaviors can result in greater

ambiguity about the value of a test as a predictor of the kinds of dishonest acts of greatest interest to

employers; “wayward impulse,” for example, a construct included in one popular integrity test, maybe

a meaningful psychological or characterological trait indicative of a propensity toward certain

behaviors, but its usefulness as a predictor of an individual’s future commitment of dishonest deeds is

tenuous.

Other factors affecting the feasibility or accuracy of empirically validating integrity tests

include: the multiple and often unobservable determinants of trends in aggregate measures of

organizational productivity, which could confound time series studies of shrinkage; incentives for

respondents to answer high-stakes tests strategically, rather than with complete candor, and the

possibility that over time job applicants will learn how to answer the tests even more skillfully; and

potential biases in criterion measures. Even the reviewers whose analyses end on a relatively

optimistic note agree that research in this field faces formidable methodological problems. ’6

.48.-
Nevertheless, the amount of research on integrity test validity has increased considerably in

recent years, and according to some reviewers the quality of this body of research has improved. For

example, one group of reviewers notes that”. . . there has been a substantial increase in the number

of studies using an external criterion . . . and significant correlations with absence, turnover,

behavioral indicators such as grievances and commendations, and supervisory ratings are being

reported." 17 These authors were able to report on 24 studies using external, nonpolygraph criteria in

their 1989 review (see below for a discussion of problems in studies using polygraph results as

criteria) whereas in 1984, they found only 7 such studies.

Aside from methodological problems, a serious issue concerns the proprietary nature of the

tests and the fact that “. . . nearly all research is being conducted by investigators associated with

honesty test publishers."18 While this does not necessarily impugn its quality, it does undermine its

credibility. The reasons commonly cited for this state of affairs in integrity test research offer little

consolation: the proprietary nature of scoring keys, the difficulty in gaining cooperation from some

publishers, and the fact that it is not a traditional area for academic research”. . . may help explain the

lack of independent research, [but] without independent research there is no compelling response to

the speculation that only successes are publicized."19

Method of OTA’s Review

To conduct its review of the research literature on integrity testing, OTA reviewed the two

most current reviews of the integrity testing literature,20 as well as reviews of specific tests published

in test review compendiums.21 OTA also reviewed copies of tests provided by leading publishers, and

albeit more favorable in tone than the earlier work by P. Sackett and M. Harris, “Honesty Testing for

Personnel Selection: A Review and Critique,” Personnel Psycholoay, vol. 37, 1984 pp. 221-245.

17. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 507.

18. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 117.

19. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 521.

20. Ibid.; and O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

21. J. Mitchell (cd.), The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute

of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1985); J. Conoley and J. Kramer (eds.), The

Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements,

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1989); and J. Keyser and R. Sweetland (eds.), Test Critiques (Kansas

City, MO: Test Corporation of America, 1987). Note that these reviews are written by single

individuals, and are not subject to outside review.

-49-
reviewed studies conducted by major test publishers. Many studies using counterproductivity as a

criterion were supplied by publishers. These studies are not cited, however, in response to the test

publishers’ request that only studies published in journals be referenced. The studies provided were

used to analyze the methodology used by test publishers to conduct such studies. OTA also

conducted interviews with a number of experts on various aspects of testing. Some of these experts

are intimately familiar with integrity testing; others specialize in related testing issues.

Concurrent Validation Research

One strategy of concurrent validation research is to compare test results with other accepted

measures of a particular behavior.22 There have been numerous attempts to use polygraph ‘cores ‘n

this context, some of which have yielded particularly high validity scores.23 But reviewers have

highlighted numerous problems with some studies of this sort, which

. . . use only the theft attitudes section as the predictor, while others include . . . theft

admissions; some use only admissions made during the polygraph as the criterion,

while others use polygrapher judgment about the suitability of the candidate for

employment; the time interval between the integrity test and the polygraph is often

not specified; [it is not] always clear whether or not candidates expected that a

polygraph exam would follow the integrity test [in which case individuals would

perhaps decide not to conceal, on the integrity test, history of wrongdoing]; some

studies preselect equal numbers of individuals passing and failing the polygraph for

inclusion in the study, thus maximizing variance in the criterion and increasing the

resulting correlation between test and criterion. .. .24

But perhaps the most obvious reason to be wary of concurrent validation studies using

polygraph is that polygraph itself has never been demonstrated to be sufficiently valid when used in

personnel selection.25 In one of the two reviews of integrity test validity research, the authors

excluded research that “. . . used polygrapher judgments as a criterion . . . because of controversy

surrounding the reliability and validity of polygrapher ratings.”26

22. In the physical sciences, for example, a new instrument designed to measure length would

obviously need to be validated against previously accepted instrumentation (e.g., the standard meter,

wavelength of light, etc.).

23. Product moment correlations were in the range of 0.29 to 0.86 in 14 studies reviewed by

Sackett and Harris, op. cit., footnote 16, pp. 221-245.

24. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 500.

26. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 70,

-50-
Although concurrent validation studies are not considered an adequate substitute for

predictive validity,27 these efforts show promise for measuring similarities between the constructs

measured by integrity tests and those measured by other personality and cognitive tests.28

Validation Research Using “Contrasted-Groups” Method

The basic principle in this approach to construct validation is that”. . . if the honesty test is

indeed a good measure of integrity, large differences should be found [between the scores of two

groups of people who are known a priori to differ in honesty].”= There have been less than a dozen

such studies, most of which compare honesty test scores of convicted felons and job applicants. The

results have generally shown statistically significant differences (as large as two standard deviations)

between average test scores of the two groups.30 Unfortunately, the underlying assumption that

convicted felons have attitudes and lifestyles similar (in construct) to those of normal job applicants or

employees “who pilfer small amounts of merchandise at work” cannot be substantiated.

Admissions of Prior Wrongdoing

A common method of validating honesty tests is to compare a test’s predictions based on

attitudes to an individual’s own confessions of wrongdoing, provided contemporaneously. In other

words, for a given definition of dishonesty, admissions of prior acts are compared to how closely

responses on the test would have been able to predict the propensity to commit those acts. These

tests vary in their definitions of honesty; i.e., what kinds of acts to include in confessions, in the

methods used to obtain admissions, and in the ways in which scores and admissions data are

associated.

While it is believed that admissions provide more data than detected thefts,

recognize the inherent limitations to admissions data as criteria: incentives to withhold

researchers

information,

coupled with the bounds on precision of the definition of the acts to be included in admissions, make

the admissions criteria very imperfect. A fundamental logical conundrum is that the admission of a

past wrongdoing is itself an act of honesty.

27. See, for example, Robert Guion, Personnel Testing (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1965), p.

371.

28. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 515.

29. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 70.

30. Sackett et al., footnote 16, p. 512.

-51-
The basic conclusion of various reviews is that there is a positive relationship between

honesty test scores and confessions, but that “. . . admissions studies are limited to demonstrating a

relationship between two types of self-description. . . .“31

The use of admissions data as validity criteria also raises a conceptual puzzle. If these data

are assumed to be reliable, i.e., if job applicants included in a validity study sample are assumed to

confess prior wrongdoing with candor, then why would this assumption not extend to all job

applicants? In a word, why not simply ask job applicants about their prior behavior, rather than use

tests designed with (imperfect) surrogates for evidence of prior dishonesty?32 On the other hand, if

the answer is that job applicants will have incentives to conceal some information, or to exaggerate

other information, then the question becomes whether that type of information can be admissible as

criteria in a validation study.

Predictive Validation Using External Criteria

The most compelling line of research on integrity tests is based on the predictive-validity

model, which addresses the following basic question: if an integrity test is used in the process of

selecting job applicants in order to screen out individuals most likely to commit certain kinds of

behavior, to what extent does the test actually predict the relevant behavior? Thus, most industrial

psychologists would agree with the statement that “. . . when the objective is to forecast behavior on

the basis of scores on a predictor measure, there is simply no substitute for [predictive validity].”=

There have been two basic approaches to validation research using external criteria in which

the unit of analysis is the individual: studies using detected theft as the criterion and studies using

other external criteria, such as absenteeism, turnover, and supervisors ratings. The trade-off in the

-52-
value of these studies can be summarized thus: the former address a principal concern, namely theft

at the workplace, but are hindered by the difficulty in detecting theft; the latter are more feasible to

conduct, but raise concerns about appropriate measures of outcome criteria. A third approach, in

which the unit of analysis is the organization, is discussed below under "Time Series Designs.” These

studies can use either theft or counterproductivity as external criteria.

Theft Studies

A point frequently raised in this report is that workplace theft is a particularly difficult behavior

to use as a criterion -- for evaluating any instrument -- if the assumption that a large fraction of

workplace theft goes undetected is true.34 This problem continues to undermine the credibility of

predictive validity studies. Because few researchers believe that detected theft is an accurate measure

of true theft, the correlations from their studies are probably inaccurate. To clarify this point, suppose

that it is known with certainty that some thieves are caught and some are not. Then the correlation

found to exist between test score (predictor) and detected theft (criterion) would be lower than the

true correlation, as long as those thieves not detected are assumed to score the same as those who

are detected. If, however, detection and test performance are not independent, e.g., if the high

scorers are the thieves who are best at evading detection, then the observed correlation could be

lower, higher, or the same as the true correlation.

in addition to the basic problem of undetected theft, which may not be able to be remedied by

improvements in research design and reporting, independent reviewers -- including OTA -- have

identified other design flaws in the available studies attempting to use theft as a criterion. For

example, there are problems in criterion definition. In one study, mishandling of cash is equated with

stealing, when some of the employees so identified may have been careless rather than dishonest.=

Another study of Salvation Army bellringers had a similar problem; it did not adequately establish that

the monetary differences among volunteers’ collections resulted from theft, as the researchers

concluded; the volunteers could have been in more or less generous locations.%

34. This assumption does not necessarily mean that there is a very high rate of theft, but rather

than whatever the true rate of theft is, much of it is difficult to detect. The question of detection, then,

can be distinguished from the question of incidence.

35. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

36. Alternatively, the volunteers could have spent less time at their posts, an indicator of

-53-
In some studies it is difficult to interpret either methods or results for one or more reasons:

several scales developed by the same company are used to screen employees, thus preventing an

unequivocal assessment of the honesty scale; numbers in subgroups are not reported; test results for

these not terminated for theft are not reported; and statistical tests of significance are not presented.37

OTA identified five predictive validity studies in which the criterion measure was either

detected theft or a reasonably close proxy. The characteristics of these studies, chosen because their

research design involved predictive validity, are summarized in table 7. Two of these studies involved

applicants for jobs in the grocery industry; two of the studies involved department stores; and one

study was of a national convenience store chain. All the studies were conducted by the publisher of

the integrity test analyzed in the studies.

Table 8 presents the raw frequency counts as reported in the respective studies. The top row

in these tables gives the number of employees not caught committing theft, and the bottom row gives

the number detected; these figures are cross-tabulated by test performance as marked in the studies.

Note that because some theft undoubtedly is not detected, the bottom row in each table potentially

underestimates the true amount of theft. To illustrate the meaning of these tables, consider Study # 2:

a total of 3,790 employees were given the test and hired regardless of their test performance.

Subsequent investigations by management revealed that 91 employees had committed some type of

theft. Among these 91, 75 had failed the integrity test and 16 had passed. Among the 3,699 for whom

the investigation did not reveal any theft, 2,145 had failed the test and 1,554 passed. Thus, 75 of those

taking the test (2 percent of the total 3,790) are known to have been characterized correctly by the

test, and 16 are known to have been characterized incorrectly. But what about the rest? If those

3,699 not detected as thieves are assumed to be honest, then 2,145 (58 percent) were misclassified; if

a substantial number of them were indeed thieves, the observed correlation between the test and the

outcome measure could be higher, lower, or equal to the actual correlation.

A central concern for public policy is the potential for classification errors, especially of honest

counterproductive behavior, though not outright theft (0’ Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16).

37. See O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16; and Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

-54-
Table 7- Predictive Validity Studies of Overt Integrity Tests

Using Detected Theft or Close Proxy as Criterion

Number of persons

detected committing

Test performance* theft or other

Sample Criterion Number passed Number failed dishonest act

Study size (percent of total) (percent of total) (percent of total)

1 479 “Thefts detected by admissions 241 238

and/or signed statements of (50%) (50%) (3.5%)

employees.”

2

4

3,790

527

61

‘Terminated for reasons of 1,570 2,220 91

dishonesty.” (41.4) (58.6) (2.4)

“Discharged for theft or 173 354 33

some related offense.” (32.8) (67.2) (6.3)

“Caught stealing cash/ 50 6

merchandise or disciplined (82.0) (l8) (9.8)

for mishandling company cash/

merchandise.”

5 801 “Caught stealing.” 472 329

(58.9) (41.1) (2.6)

* “Passed” or “failed” in these studies reflect cut scores defined for research purposes. These cut scores mayor may not be the cut scores used

by any given employer.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Table 8

Forecasting Efficiency of Integrity Tests

(2x2 Contingency Tables for Validation Studies

Using Detected Theft or Close Proxy for Criterion)

Study 1

Failed test Passed test Total

Not detected 222 240 462

Detected 16 1 17

TOTAL 238 241 479

Not detected

Detected

TOTAL

Not detected

Detected

TOTAL

Not detected

Detected

TOTAL

Not detected

Detected

TOTAL

Failed test

2,145

75

2,220

Failed test

326

28

354

Failed test

8

3

11

Failed test

318

11

329

Study 2

Passed test

1,554

16

1,570

Study 3

Passed.test

168

5

173

Study 4

Passed test

47

3

50

Study 5

Passed test

462

10

472

Total

3,699

91

3,790

Total

494

33

527

Total

55

6

61

Total

780

21

801

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

-56-
persons incorrectly identified as dishonest. Table 9 shows that the overall level of misclassification in

these studies ranged from 18 percent (in a study with small sample size) to over 60 percent. From

less than 1 percent to 6 percent of those passing the tests (that is, identified by the tests as honest)

were later found to have stolen from their employers, meaning that upwards of 94 percent of those

38 Such reported results are no doubt identified by the tests as thieves were correctly identified.

compelling to employers. But of concern to potential employees, the data in the fourth column of the

table suggests why the predictive validity research, even if it is found to be valid, provokes public

controversy: of those classified as dishonest on the basis of an integrity test, the proportion who are

not detected committing theft ranges from 73 to 97 percent. These data are useful to illustrate the

divergence between possible consequences that is at the core of the public policy dilemma.

Counterproductivity-Based Studies

In contrast with the limited amount of research relying on detected thefts for criterion

measures, there have been many studies using a variety of counterproductivity-based outcomes,

including supervisory data, terminations, and absenteeism. One of the two principal reviews reported

on the results of a number of these studies,39 although they did not evaluate in depth each study’s

design and conduct.

Measures of counterproductivity used as outcome variables vary considerably. Some

measures are specific and discrete (e. g., absenteeism, terminations) and some consist of composites.

Some measures are counts from employee records and some are supervisors’ ratings. Objective

measures of counterproductive behavior include tardiness, absenteeism, accidents, number of worker

compensation claims, voluntary turnover, terminations for theft or gross misconduct, and damage to

property. Indicators of “productivity,” such as mean number of days employed, are also used.

Similarly, supervisors’ ratings are made of overall performance or misconduct, or of more specific

-57-
Table 9- Classification and Misclassification in Five Predictive Validity Studies

Using Detected Theft or Close Proxy as Criteria*

Correct classifications

Of those passing Of those failing

test, not detected test. % detected

Study

1 99.6 6.7

& 2 99.0 3.4

3 97.1 7.9

4 94.0 27.3

5 97.9 3.3

Misclassifications

Percent of total Of those failing Of those passing

sample misclassified test, % not detected test, % detected

46.6 93.3 0.4

57.0 96.7 1.0

62.8 92.1 2.9

18.0 72.7 6.0

40.9 96.7 2.1

* “Passing” and “failing” in these studies reflect cut scores defined for research purposes. These cut scores mayor may not be the cut scores used

by any given employer.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
measures such as absenteeism and tardiness. This variety of criteria reflects the attempts of

researchers to generate useful information. It does, however, make an overall judgment about

predictive validity difficult.

Research results from these studies are reported in primarily two ways: (1) in terms of

correlation coefficients that serve as a measure of association between integrity test scores and one

or more indicators of counterproductive behavior, usually scored continuously; and (2) in terms of

proportions of the honest and dishonest individuals who are correctly and/or incorrectly identified by

the tests.

As for the theft studies, OTA reviewed a number of counterproductivity studies in order to

evaluate their methodology; and as with the theft studies, issues arose with respect to both study

design and criterion measurement.

For example, in one study, 169 hotel industry applicants were tested and hired regardless of

test scores. The criterion measure was termination. This study, although flawed, suggested

somewhat better results, from the point of view of misclassification, than those shown in table 9. First,

with respect to persons who “failed” the test: the study showed that among these 53 applicants (31

percent of the total sample), 16 (30 percent) remained employed. Second, among the 116 who

“passed,” and were therefore presumed honest, 49 (or 42 percent) were eventually terminated. It

should be noted, however, that just as detected theft probably underestimates the true amount of theft

in the studies reported in table 8, the termination variable in this study probably overestimates

dishonesty: there is substantial ambiguity over the causes of termination.40

Despite (or because of) flaws in methodology and reporting, the predictive correlational

studies reported by Sackett and his colleagues found a range of generally low, but statistically

significant, associations between a range of integrity test scores and a wide range of counterproductive measures. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.16 to 0.62; only one study reported a

correlation coefficient greater than 0.35.4’

40. This is a good example of the trade-off between “criterion variance” and “method variance.”

See Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 507.

41. From 3 to 38 percent of the variance in counterproductive behaviors would be predicted

(explained) by the test scores in a multiple regression model.

-59-
It is not possible to ascertain from the studies reporting only correlation coefficients the

proportions of honest and dishonest individuals correctly and incorrectly classified. In three studies

providing the relevant data, misclassification of dishonest individuals ranges from 17 to 29 percent; in

two of these studies, 22 and 29 percent of honest individuals were misclassified. Another study found

that the mean number of days employed was significantly higher among those passing the test (95

versus 87 days in the year of the study) .42

Time-Series Designs

Studies that focus on the reduction of organization-level inventory losses and counterproductivity have been termed by some “time-series designs.”43 Almost all of the studies included in

the two published independent reviews reported reductions in shrinkage, overall levels of

terminations, or counterproductive behavior after introduction of the tests.44 However, flaws in the

research designs made it difficult to determine the sources of the change. The most prominent of the

flaws was the failure to use appropriate control groups, thus leaving open the possibility that other

factors (e.g., seasonal fluctuations in shrinkage; changes in management; perceived changes in

company tolerance of theft) accounted for the observed improvements.45

In one study, 46 the greatest reduction in shrinkage occurred in the first 2 months after a

switch from polygraph to integrity testing screening. The reviewers note, however, that unless there

was extraordinarily high turnover, use of the integrity test for selection could not have been the reason

for this sudden reduction.47

42. It may be important to note that Sackett et al. (op. cit., footnote 16) reported both correlation

coefficients and dichotomous results for only one study; therefore there is almost no overlap between

these types of studies, and results of the studies reporting both types of predictive error may not be

generalizable to the studies reporting a single correlation coefficient.

43. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16; and Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

44. Because of differences in measurements used by the various studies, it is not possible to

report a meaningful range of results. For example, one study reported a correlation of 0.68 between

scores on tests taken by convenience store managers and average monthly store shortage reduction

figures. Another reported that 80 percent of all terminations for theft occurred in the control group

stores. A third reported a reduction in the termination ratio; a fourth reported both average monthly

reductions in terminations for theft and average monthly total voluntary reductions.

45. According to O’Bannon et al. (op. cit., footnote 16), the one study that did use two control

groups found that differences in shrinkage among the stores involved in the study were not

statistically significant (reported in O’Bannon et al.).

46. Ibid., pp. 88-89.

47. Most employees -- the same ones who were with the company during the baseline measures

-- would still be with the company. See ibid., pp. 88-89.

-60-
In addition, the following problems were observed in one or more of these studies:

● inappropriate measurement of shrinkage, including shrinkage and cost-savings

estimates not based clearly on the study organizations themselves, but on industry

.48 averages,

● use of other predictive scales in addition to honesty scales, thus making it difficult to

disentangle the effects of the honest scales;49 and

● concurrent use of polygraph testing for screening a subset of employees.50

Reviewers are skeptical about the available time-series studies for these and other reasons,

but they believe the results of these studies are grounds for guarded optimism about continued

research. While noting that a problem with these studies is the unreliability of the criterion measure

(“. . . in at least some of the studies it is evident that error is present in the measure of shrinkage. . .“),

one reviewer concludes that while “. . . this group of studies cannot be considered unequivocal in

demonstrating the validity of honesty tests . . . they do begin to establish a foundation of evidence

which may become more convincing as additional studies accumulate.”51

General Remarks

Industrial and organizational psychologists recognize the difficulty in surmounting methodological barriers to the “ideal” predictive validity study. For example, “. . . the most useful study would

be one in which no other selection screening is done, providing a ‘pure’ examination of the honesty

test.”52 The appeal of this model is tempered, however, by the test publishers’ claim that their tests

are not intended to be the sole (or even the primary) selection criterion. 53 Thus, the truly ideal study

would be one in which the various selection procedures continue to be used in combination, but

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., p. 92.

50. Sackett et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

51. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 92.

52. O’Bannon et al., op. cit., footnote 16, p. 79.

53. See Association of Personnel Test Publishers, Model Guidelines for Preemdoyment Integrity

Testing Progams, 1st ed. (Washington, DC: 1990).

-61-
which accounts explicitly for the independent effects of the honesty test and for the interaction effects

between the test and the other screening procedures. This type of study would not be easy to carry

out.

With respect to counterproductivity-based studies using supevisory ratings, in particular, “. . .

for a fair assessment to be made, test scores should not be known within the company while the data

is being collected . . . [so that the scores cannot] influence the outcome by biasing the opinions of

managers toward some employees.”54 In other words, human resource professionals and industrial

psychologists recognize a common feature of experiments in the physical and social sciences, i.e.,

the “double-blind” model. Few of the reported studies indicate whether test scores intended for use in

reaching hiring decisions are kept secret from individuals assessing employee performance, and if

they were, how it was handled.

Methodological constraints notwithstanding, prominent academic and industrial

psychologists, have reviewed the results of the available predictive validity studies. Although these

reviews have been conducted by individuals who are generally sympathetic with the objectives of

psychological and personnel testing, their findings are couched in cautious tones and their principal

conclusion is that better research is very much needed:

The most clear cut finding from reviewing predictive validity studies is an

observation on the state of this body of research. . . . The field of honesty testing has a

great need for producing additional high quality studies in this area.55

54. O’Bannon et al., op cit., footnote 16, p. 79.

55. Ibid., p. 85.

-62-
Chapter 3

PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT

HONESTY TESTING
Chapter 3

POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING THE USE OF INTEGRITY TESTS

American society uses many types of tests to assess individual capabilities and attributes, and

to inform screening and selection decisions in education and employment. ’ Aptitude tests measure

ability in verbal, logical, or mathematical domains; standardized achievement tests tend to focus on

attainment of knowledge in more specific areas, usually with reference to defined educational goals;

and personality tests are concerned with affective aspects of behavior, such as emotional adjustment,

motivation, interpersonal relations, and attitudes.

Although tests can differ fundamentally in their design and in the underlying constructs they

measure, they all share a very basic characteristic: they are “. . . imperfect and therefore potentially

misleading as measures of individual performance in education and employment.”2

This chapter addresses several questions for policy makers deliberating the uses of honesty

and integrity tests: effects of integrity test fallibility and classification error, potential discriminatory

consequences of integrity test use, and privacy considerations. These negative effects must always

be weighed against potential benefits to firms and society at Iarge.3

-63-
TEST FALLIBILITY: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Because all tests are imperfect, projections made from test scores are not necessarily

accurate representations of test-takers’ future behavior or performance. Such ‘classification error” is

always a possible consequence of test use. But the effects of classification error from different types

of tests are not necessarily the same. For example, most people would probably find it unpleasant to

be mistakenly classified as below some standard in arithmetic ability necessary to perform successfully in a job or at school, but both the individual and social consequences of being misidentified as

carrying (or not carrying) a deadly disease are surely different. For many people, too, there appears

to be something special about the potential for erroneous classifications into categories that suggest

they are “honest” or “dishonest.” Understanding some of the reasons that misclassification from

integrity tests can be particularly onerous can be helpful to policymakers.

Self Control and the Presumption of Innocence

As discussed in chapter 1 of this Report, there is considerable debate within the psychological

community over the relative importance of personality traits and environments (or situations) in

determining human behavior. Another question hinges on the extent to which an individual is able to

control a given personality trait, assuming the trait exists.

For example, if a person tests positive for the trait called “dishonesty,” i.e., is identified as at

high risk for committing certain acts defined as dishonest, he or she may still be able to control future

behavior and, in a sense, “overcome” the existence of the trait. And this ability to exercise the

requisite self control may also be affected by situational variables. This raises a methodological

problem, in that the presence of the “self-control” trait would need to be incorporated in research on

test accuracy in predicting propensities to commit dishonest or counterproductive behavior. There

has not been research in which this aspect of the problem was addressed explicitly.

Aside from the measurement problem, this issue of self control raises a more basic question.

4. This section draws on Mark Kelman, “A General Framework for Evaluating Classification

Errors, With Special Reference to Integrity Testing,” OTA contractor report, June 26, 1990.

-64-
American society does not generally require proof that individuals can exercise control; we rather take

that as an implicit assumption. Our society generally prefers to grant people the opportunity to prove

themselves as individuals, and shuns prejudgment based on one’s identification with a group whose

mean level of performance in a given domain (or on a given test) is higher or lower than the mean

level of other groups.5

A key question, therefore, is whether a trait such as dishonesty is immutable. In the absence

of evidence on the immutability of the trait, it can be argued that reliance on an integrity test score

could deny an individual’s claim to self control, and thus signal a departure from the axiom that

society punishes only bad deeds and not bad dispositions. Whether society is willing to tolerate chips

in the armor provided by the “presumption of innocence” is a question that Congress will have to

consider if it debates policy over the use of integrity tests.

What Happens to the Misclassified?

Even if integrity tests were the sole basis for employment decisions, which no one

recommends, 6 applicants who do poorly on the test would not necessarily be excluded from all

employment opportunities. If the labor market is functioning properly, and if there are some jobs that

simply have lower requirements for honest employees, then theoretically it would be possible for

individuals who are labeled dishonest to find work eventually.

In general, though, the relatively lower demand for dishonest workers would theoretically drive

down wages and employment opportunities for individuals classified as dishonest. The question

becomes, then, whether this situation would persist, i.e., whether individuals who score low on an

integrity test would systematically be denied employment in the future. Two possibilities warrant

consideration: first, if test results are made available in the labor market, in databases, or through

other means, then failing even a single test could have longer term repercussions. (The question of

information access is discussed below under “Privacy.”)

-65-
Second, if integrity tests are reliable (in the sense that individuals who are tested repeatedly

do not vary significantly in their test performance), as the test publishers claim, then their use could

create a population of persons who are repeatedly misclassified, and who are systematically denied

employment without cause. Alternative methods to screen out dishonest job applicants, such as

subjective interviews or letters of reference, are also imperfect and can result in erroneous decisions.

They are} however, less likely to be as consistently wrong as integrity tests about specific individuals.

Assuming even a modest error rate, widespread use of the tests could deny opportunity to a sizable

number of persons.

Aside from potential economic loss -- denial of employment -- based on erroneous test

scores, use of integrity tests could cause injury because of the stigma of failure. Comparison with

cognitive ability tests can again be illustrative: performance on cognitive tests implies no global

judgment of a person, but can indicate that he or she is likely to be more or less productive than

someone else in certain jobs. There are no jobs, however, for which dishonesty is either required or

preferred. Thus, if individuals learn their test results they could suffer from the implied label; and if

scores become accessible to potential employers (other than those who administered the test) or to

others in the community, the low scorers could suffer a social stigma.7

These potentially stigmatizing effects are made sharper by virtue of the tests’ scientific

imprimatur. Because many employers will want evidence of a test’s accuracy before purchasing it,

tests publishers have an obvious incentive to provide evidence that their products have been validated

in scientific studies. The result is that individuals are not deemed dishonest or counterproductive by

“whim” but rather by dint of a psychological instrument that has been proven in repeated experiments.

Thus, while some tests might theoretically result in less overall misclassification than other screening

methods, the tests could also intensify the effects of misclassification on those who are misclassified.

Another potential consequence of integrity test error -- and clearly an unintended consequence from the point of view of employers and test publishers as well as test-takers -- is the

possibility that erroneous classification of honest persons as dishonest will be self-fulfilling. If low

7. It is important to note that integrity test publishers advise against informing applicants of their

test scores. See below, for discussion of shared data, access, and related privacy issues.

-66-
scorers are erroneously denied employment, it can be argued that they are paying an unearned

economic penalty; if so, they might rationally conclude that they will be made no worse off -- and

possibly be made better off -- by engaging in the behavior for which they have already been

penalized. 8 The possibility that use of the tests might lead some people to behave dishonestly -- quite

the opposite of their intention -- warrants consideration and research. 9 To date there has been no

empirical research to test this proposition.

What Happens If Pre-Employment Integrity Tests are Not Used?

A common argument for using integrity tests is that they are “more valid” than other preemployment screening methods, i.e., that they are more accurate in predicting outcomes of interest.

Some test publishers and researchers therefore claim that integrity tests result in fewer classification

errors than other selection methods. This claim is not necessarily correct. First of all, most other preemployment screening methods do not classify people in terms of honesty. They may “misclassify”

individuals -- as a poor credit risk or as lacking some skill, for example -- but they do not characterize

applicants as not honest. In fact, not all methods result in classification; a random procedure, for

example, may reject some individuals without classifying them.

Moreover, where research that compares rates of error of integrity tests with other

nonrandom hiring methods has been attempted, it has relied on estimates of the prevailing rate of

theft (the base rate) and on estimates of the conditional probabilities (i.e., the frequencies of correctly

and incorrectly classified subjects) derived from correlation coefficients reported in other research

-67-
studies.10 

. There has been very little comparative research of this type, and it is not possible to draw

any firm conclusions.

POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS: ISSUES AND EVIDENCE

An important concern about the effects of integrity tests is whether members of various

ethnic, racial, or gender groups could suffer from discrimination in hiring because of test results. This

is particularly important with respect to protected groups in society, and much of the research that

has been conducted on discrimination has focused on so-called “adverse impact” considerations.

Indeed, the framework of civil rights laws is a “. . . key consideration in adopting and maintaining a

testing program [and] test publishers can market their products more easily if they can advise

potential users that their tests do not require legal validation.’”

Many integrity test publishers have conducted adverse impact research. Their studies report

a variety of findings: in some cases no statistically significant differences between groups’ average

test scores are found, in other cases there appears to be a favorable bias toward protected groups

(minorities, women, and the elderly), and in other cases minority groups (i.e., Blacks and Hispanics)

appear to do less well than whites. 12 Based on the studies supplied by the authors and publishers of

honesty tests, their instruments appear to be free of adverse impact.13

Four caveats must be noted. First, as stated earlier, research conducted by test publishers,

without independent replication, raises credibility issues. ’4

Second, “. . . in some cases, the data used to demonstrate lack of adverse impact was not
with job applicants. Other studies simply provided no information at all about how the data was

gathered. A second issue is the size of the samples used. Some studies included only a small

number of participants. . . .“15

Third, most of the adverse impact research relies on application of the “4/5th rule,” a

convention suggested by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission16 and widely used by

employers in evaluating their hiring and promotions practices. This rule of thumb stipulates that a

hiring rate for a minority group that is less than 80 percent of the rate for the majority will be regarded

as evidence of adverse impact of the hiring system. While the research conducted by integrity test

publishers suggests that the tests do not violate this standard, there is debate over its appropriateness

as the sole criterion in making judgments of discrimination. Indeed, the Uniform Guidelines note the

possibility that “. . . smaller differences in selection rates [than would constitute discrimination under

the 4/5th rule] may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both

statistical and practical terms. . . ."17

The courts have relied largely but not exclusively on the 4/5th rule approach. “In one case a

trial court declined to follow the 80-percent rule where the acceptance rate for minorities was 81.55

percent of that of majority candidates, but there was expert testimony that the disparity nevertheless

was statistically significant. At the other extreme, another trial found a clearly ‘significant

discriminatory pattern’ of selection from a test which eliminated about one-fourth of female applicants

but only about one percent of male applicants."18 If the courts shift their stance toward more stringent

statistical criteria, more research will be necessary to resolve the question of adverse impact. ’g

-69-
Finally, this issue is further complicated because it is not entirely clear whether adverse

impact can refer to test scores alone or whether there must be evidence that the scores lead to

differences in hiring. Evidence on the precise role of test scores in hiring does not exist in the

aggregate, and there have been no individual cases decided in which plaintiffs argue that an integrity

test per se was the basis of discrimination.

Because of the questions raised in this discussion, OTA concurs with the finding that while

currently available studies may be reassuring to employers, “. . . it cannot be fairly said that the coast

is clear.”20 Additional research is required in order to inform policy deliberations concerning discrimination and adverse impact of integrity tests.

PRIVACY

Whether questions on pre-employment tests represent an invasion of privacy is not a new

issue.21 

.

In 1965 the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the

Judiciary, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, and the House Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy

of the Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Representative Cornelius E. Gallagher,22

held hearings to determine whether the questions asked on psychological tests used by the Federal

Government were an unjustified invasion of the respondent’s psyche and private life. The

Subcommittees also investigated the validity of these tests and the due process issues involved in test

administration. The reactions of the press and public were very critical of the types of questions asked

-70-
on these psychological tests. 23 Congressional hearings and media attention generated increased

involvement by psychologists and the American Psychological Association in public debates and in

drafting guidelines for test construction and test use.24

In 1967, the Office of Science and Technology of the Executive Office of the President

established a panel to examine the issue of privacy and behavioral research, and to propose

guidelines for those engaged in behavioral research. The panel defined the right to privacy as”. . . the

right of the individual to decide for himself how much he will share with others his thoughts, his

feelings, and the facts of his personal life.”25

A critical question, then, is what information a test should try to obtain. In order to protect the

privacy of the individual, psychologists maintain that the information must be relevant to the stated

purpose of the test.26 Most psychologists agree that, to ensure that an individual’s right to privacy is

not violated, “. . . there must be valid psychological reasons for having the particular information

sought in making the assessment.”27

But even a valid psychological reason must be weighed along with social and ethical

concerns to determine the appropriate balance between the individual’s right to privacy and the

employer’s right (or need) to choose employees who will not commit certain acts. Each of these

competing interests must be analyzed.

Publishers of paper-and-pencil integrity tests argue that applicants do not find taking the test

to be offensive. In some cases, the evidence test publishers offer is based on responses to a test

question (that is not scored) asking whether the respondent resented answering the questions. One

-71-
study conducted by employees of an integrity test publishing company found that 82 percent of 224

job applicants who responded to an open-ended question reported no objections to taking the preemployment honesty test. In a companion study, 11 percent agreed that this type of questionnaire

was an invasion of privacy, while 69 percent disagreed. Three percent resented being asked to

answer such a questionnaire, while 78 percent did not. Five percent thought that administering this

type of questionnaire reflects negatively on the company, while 82 percent thought that it did not.

Unfortunately, these results are not conclusive: one cannot rule out the possibility that respondents

who have an interest in “passing” the test and being hired are not entirely candid in their answers.

Similar research has involved the reactions of a sample of college students, 84 percent of

whom had work experience in industries where honesty tests were common, to taking a paper-andpencil integrity test. This group was generally more strongly negative. Forty-two percent agreed,

either strongly or somewhat, that such a test was an invasion of privacy, while 44 percent disagreed.

Twenty-six percent said that they would resent being asked to take such a test, while 49 percent said

that they would not. Thirty-three percent thought that administering this type of test reflected

negatively on the company, while 43 percent thought that it did not.28

Although there is variation in what individuals consider personal, there are some questions

that are generally regarded as invasive. There are also other questions about one’s personal status

that legally cannot be asked, either because they may have a discriminatory effect, e.g., prior arrests,

or because the information is not considered relevant or reliable, e.g., religious affiliation.

This leaves a large gray area into which some individuals may feel that some of the attitude

and admissions questions asked on integrity tests fall, e.g., “do you always tell the truth?;” “how many

people do you like?;” “how strong is your conscience?;” “do you ever feel guilty?;” “do you ever treat

people unfairly?;” “do you think your conscience would bother you if you cheated someone who

cheated you?; “ “how often do you blush?;” “how often have you been so upset that you wanted to

leave home?” In addition, open-ended questions, e.g., “tell us what you dislike about yourself,” that

appear on some tests may also elicit information that individuals would not want to divulge.

-72-
In pre-employment screening, the individual’s right to privacy must be balanced against the

employer’s (and society’s) need for employees who will not steal or otherwise be counterproductive. = If it were necessary to demonstrate this need in court, employers might be asked for

evidence on the magnitude of the employee theft problem. Additionally, they might be asked if there

were other techniques available to screen employees or to monitor workers that posed less of a threat

to privacy.

Perhaps the central reason that the privacy debate is difficult to unravel is that although

privacy is a fundamental value in our society, it is not well conceptualized and is difficult to define.

Three central aspects of privacy do recur, however, in regard to integrity testing.

First, there is the notion that certain types of information are inherently private. Second is the

concept of a boundary between the individual and others; people should know the boundary between

themselves and others and understand what information is crossing it. The third conceptual issue is

the responsibility of organizations with regard to personal information.

Are the test questions themselves invasive? Are they necessary to determine whether a

person is honest? Next, and perhaps most important, is the interpretation of the answers. An

applicant may believe that his or her answers to a question or series of questions is legitimate, but if

the answers are then interpreted to make specific conclusions about propensity for future behavior,

the applicant may feel that his or her privacy has been invaded.

With regard to the use of and access to test answers, it maybe useful to consider the code of

fair information practices developed in 1973 by an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Health,

Education, and Welfare on automated Personal Data Systems. These principles serve as the basis for

information privacy legislation, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, the Financial

Privacy Act, and the Video Privacy Act. They are:

● there must be no personal data recordkeeping system whose very existence is secret;

29. The guidelines for use of the MMPI-2, as noted in ch. 1, are explicit on this point, reserving

tests that invade privacy for situations of potential pubic hazard. See Hathaway et al., op. cit.,

footnote 27.

-73-
● there must be a way for an individual to find out what information about him or her is in a

record and how it is used;

● there must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him or her that was

obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without

his or her consent:

● there must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable

information about him or her; and

● any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable

personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take

precautions to prevent misuses of the data.30

Confidentiality

Although related to the right of the job applicant to decide what information to disclose,

confidentiality is distinguished in that it involves the responsibilities of those to whom the applicant has

disclosed information. This entails restricting third party access to the information and protecting the

security of the information from unauthorized access.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Uniform Guidelines on Employee

Selection Procedures (29 CFR Part 1607.1) require an employer to keep documentation, including the

records of the component process, for selection procedures that may arguably have an adverse

impact. For this purpose, most employers would be likely to retain information on test results and

copies of the tests themselves. EEOC general regulations also require an employer to retain

30. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights of

Citizens (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973).

-74-
applications and supporting material for 6 months; States often have similar requirements. Another

EEOC regulation (Form 100, Employer Information Report EEO-1) requires employers to keep

information on race, sex, and ethnic background in a separate file from personnel records. There

appear to be no legal restrictions on employers retaining integrity test results, and/or copies of the

tests themselves, in an employee’s personnel file.31 Some reviewers have expressed concern that

extensive files on individuals’ minor offenses (gleaned from test answers) could be kept in centralized

databanks.

With respect to third-party access to information, the Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing state that:

Test results identified by the names of individual test takers should not be

released to any person or institution without the informed consent of the test taker or

an authorized representative unless otherwise required by law. Scores of individuals

identified by name should be made available only to those with a legitimate,

professional interest in particular cases.32

The Model Guidelines of the Association of Personnel Test Publishers suggest that test publishers be

consistent with this standard, i.e., that the employer (test user) has an obligation to maintain the

confidentiality of the test answers, and that the test results cannot be provided to a third party without

the applicant’s written permission. However, this policy may not always be communicated to those

responsible for administering the test or to test applicants. A review of several guides or manuals for

test administrators revealed that confidentiality policies were not stated for the test administrator. A

review of the applicant agreement forms on several tests indicates that some include a statement that

test results will not be revealed without the permission of the applicant, while others do not.

Additionally, there may be no review or audit to ensure that these general policies are being complied

with by test users.

Interviews with several test publishers revealed that what happens to the completed test

booklet depends on how it was scored. If the test was mailed to the test publisher for scoring, then

-75-
the test publisher kept the booklet. if it was scored by the test user, then the booklet was kept by

them. It is not known whether test results or test booklets become part of an employee’s personnel

record.

Related to the question of third-party access to test results is the issue of non-authorized

access to those results. This involves safeguards for the security of test results, especially while being

communicated through online telecommunication linkages and stored in computerized databases.

The Standards for Educational and Psycholoaical Testing state that:

Test data maintained in data files should be adequately protected from improper

disclosure. Use of time-sharing networks, data banks, and other electronic data

processing systems should be restricted to situations in which confidentiality can be

reasonably assured.33

Some integrity test publishers do maintain computerized databases with information on tests

that have been administered. In most cases this information is kept for research purposes. In all

cases the information is retrievable by an individual identifier -- in some cases not by name, but by

social security number.

Thus, with respect to third-party access to test results and security of test administration and

results, it appears that appropriate standards exist for integrity test publishers and test users.

However, the extent of adherence to these standards is unknown and there is no mechanism to

enforce compliance.

INFORMED CONSENT

Basic to the notion of the fairness of a test or test procedures is the principle that the

individual should give his or her informed consent to the test. A critical question is what the individual

needs to consent to in order for there to be informed consent. Standard 16.1 of the Standards for

Educational and Psychological Testing, which established a general policy of requiring informed

consent, exempts those situations in which “. . . consent is clearly implied (e. g., application for

employment or educational admissions.)”34 This exemption assumes a broad concept of “implied

33. Ibid., Standard 16.5, Primary, p. 86.

34. Ibid., Standard 16.1, Primary, p. 85.

-76-
consent.” One testing expert argues that the individual “. . . should certainly be informed about the

purpose of the testing, the kinds of data sought, and the use that will be made of the scores.”= She

recognizes that in order for the test to be effective, the individual should not know the ways in which

responses to specific test items will be interpreted, or be shown test items in advance:

if an examinee is told in advance that a self-report inventory will be scored with a

dominance scale, his or her responses are likely to be influenced by stereotyped (and

often erroneous) ideas he or she may have about this trait, or by a false or distorted

self-concept.*

Broadly consistent with this advice, the integrity test publishers expect test users to inform

37 Not as consistent are some test applicants about the test and its role in the hiring decision.

instructions, which tell employers that job applicants are to be told that the purpose of the test is to

gather information on various personal qualifications, attitudes, opinions, and background.

A related question is whether the individual has a choice in whether or not to take the test.

Although taking the test is technically voluntary, it is probable for most pre-employment screenings

that, if an applicant refuses to take an integrity test, his or her chances of getting that job are

significantly reduced.

FURTHER THOUGHTS

This report has challenged some of the basic premises underlying the use of integrity tests in

the workplace. In particular, OTA found that integrity testing is based on the belief that workplace

behavior is determined largely by individual attributes. However, some researchers concerned with

management’s interest in limiting workplace counterproductivity suggest a broader view: “It is critical

for supervisors to appreciate the complex interrelationship between theft and other forms of nonIarcenous counterproductive behavior at work. . . . The factors that influence theft are often the same

which generate other manifestations of counterproductive activity. . . . This means that theft and

35. Anastasi, op. cit., footnote 26, p. 8.

36. Ibid.

37. Association of Personnel Test Publishers, op. cit., footnote 31, p. 13.

-77-
dishonesty are management problems, not solely the concerns of security or law enforcement

personnel.”=

If these and other social scientists are correct, and dishonest behavior is largely influenced by

workplace environments, then predictive validity studies that do not account explicitly for interactions

between individual behaviors and environmental factors are an inadequate basis for assessing the

utility of integrity tests. While business managers are of course free to make decisions based on any

information, they may wish to press test vendors to clarify the limitations of the available research.

An issue that OTA did not address is whether pre-employment screening in general, and

integrity tests in particular, are more efficient than increased investments in detection and security.

More research would be required to address this question, which is primarily of interest to business

establishments weighing their options.39

To the extent that problems of cost and relative effectiveness primarily affect private business

decisions and productivity, they are not necessarily public policy matters. Presumably, firms

considering investments in various alternatives would weigh their costs and benefits. But it is the

Government’s role to stay aware of the societal consequences of business decisions, and to share

information on the potential risks and benefits of various mechanisms marketed as productivityenhancing tools. OTA believes that the potentially harmful effects of systematic misclassification,

possible impacts on protected groups, and privacy implications of integrity tests combine to warrant

further governmental attention.

U S. Government PRINTING OFFICE” 19900-662-250

-78-