Honesty and Ethics Tests

Honesty and ethics tests, also known as "integrity tests," began in the 1980s, when companies and managers realized the need to predict behavioral patterns at work. Integrity tests were first called paper-and-pencil honesty tests because, as the name suggests, they were administered with paper and pencil. Paper-and-pencil tests are used as an alternative to polygraph tests because of the EPPA (Employee Polygraph Protection Act) enacted on December 27, 1987.

Integrity tests raised many questions, and one of them is ethics. Integrity tests are used in the pre-selection process and are mainly used to predict risky behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), such as theft at work, aggressive behavior, etc. But is it really fair to reject a candidate based only on a possibility? This question concerns validity and reliability.

When we think about the reliability of a test in general, two things are taken into account: consistency and stability. As for internal consistency reliability, studies have shown correlations above 0.85 for the Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI) and 0.86 for the ICES Compliance scale when measured on a data sample of 458 (Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N.; The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: 2012). And regarding stability, research also shows that rates are equally strong, with reported values of 0.91 on the PSI.

Based on these findings, we can definitely conclude that integrity tests have an acceptable level of reliability.

Social Desirability and Faking

The research of Sackett et al. (1989) noted that studies had shown a substantial correlation between integrity tests and social desirability.

Cunningham (1989) constructed an integrity motivation scale to measure self-presentation strategies of (a) out-guessing, (b) test minimization (casual attitude toward the importance of the test), and (c) dishonesty legitimization (dishonesty as the norm) (Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E... New developments in the use of measures of honesty integrity, conscientiousness, dependability trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. 1996).

Other authors also suggest writing less obvious questions, which sometimes seem not to be really related to a subject, but the problem with these types of questions is that they often become too personal, and that could negatively affect candidates.

Another solution is to combine integrity tests with cognitive tests, which could improve the prediction of behavior.

Practicality

Integrity tests are probably the best solution for most companies because they can be done with paper and pencil or on a computer. The good thing is that a researcher can test several candidates at the same time, so they are not time-consuming. Also, to conduct integrity tests, nothing else is needed, only the candidate and the test, which is really economical compared with other types of tests such as biodata.

Types of integrity tests

Overt integrity tests (objective tests); this test measures inclinations toward counterproductive work behaviors such as substance abuse, workplace aggression, sabotage, or absenteeism. Overt tests are pencil-and-paper tests, usually divided into two sections: the first section measures attitudes toward CWB and the second examines the history of involvement in CWB.

After reviewing nearly 300 studies provided by research publications and test publishers, the overall conclusion reached was that "for those few tests for which validity information is available, the preponderance of the evidence is supportive of their predictive validity" (Goldberg et al, 1991, p.26). Wanek (1999), in his review of the utility, reliability, and validity of integrity tests, concluded that they were useful, reliable, and valid.

Personality-oriented tests (Covert Psychometric Integrity Tests) /covert, not openly acknowledged or displayed/. As the name suggests, these tests focus on the personal characteristics of a candidate that are believed to be part of the same construct as CWB.

Test Scoring and Reporting

Most of the tests are computerized and scored by their author or scored automatically on site. After the tests are scored, employers receive feedback about the candidates' results; details and formats may vary. Usually, results are published as a report of subtest scores and the total score. Publishers of overt tests generally report standard scores in terms of risk levels. Most publishers provide cut-off scores to employers in some form. (Wayne J. Camara and Dianne L. Schneider).

Conclusion

Research agrees that integrity tests are valid and can be used to form an idea about a candidate and future employees. With this in mind, every publisher, psychologist, and author has a responsibility to make sure their test is reliable.

We have made a lot of progress in this area of organizational psychology, but there is much more to do and improve. We are obliged to know what is lacking and what the disadvantages of integrity tests are and, before using a test, to give a detailed explanation of its indications and its limitations. Integrity tests are imperfect, but they are the most efficient and economical option for companies and recruiters.