Integrity test

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The integrity test is a human resource management tool and is used for personnel diagnostics . It was developed for the purpose of measuring the integrity of an applicant and thus being able to predict possible harmful behavior in the workplace. Integrity tests are only commercially used instruments for personnel selection. As with all aptitude test methods, integrity tests are used to attempt to improve personnel selection compared to random selection or alternative instruments. In the United States, integrity tests have been used to select personnel for around fifty years and are now performed in around 50 percent of application processes. There are over forty different procedures. The measurement of integrity is not widespread in Germany: the first tests were used at the end of the 1990s, and the frequency of use is less than five percent.

economics

The use of integrity tests is intended to prevent damage caused by employees that can affect both the individual company and the economy as a whole . Annually caused by theft in the German retail damage of about 4.5 billion euros. Up to 50 percent of this can be traced back to employee theft. Other crimes to be prevented are fraud , bribery , abuse of office or the acceptance of advantages (e.g. when awarding construction contracts). There is also the thesis that employees with high integrity values work more effectively . Both high prognostic validities and high incremental validities determined in combination with IQ tests speak for this . Accident statistics from truck drivers in the USA show that employees with lower integrity scores cause five times as many accidents as their colleagues with high scores.

History and research directions

At the beginning of the 1940s and 1950s, the basis for today's integrity tests was created in the USA. The American army psychologist GL Betts is considered to be the founder of the integrity tests. He developed a procedure which should exclude recruits with a criminal background. He asked questions with a comparatively obvious reference to the topic of “honesty in the workplace”. His approach was strongly influenced by the theories of Sigmund Freud , so that he also questioned childhood experiences in which he suspected the origin of deviant behavior. So he inquired z. B. after theft offenses in early childhood (“How often did you steal things before you were twelve years old?”). The items were selected using two contrasting groups (prisoners and army soldiers) and differed significantly in their characteristics. From 67 selected items, the first test procedure, the Biographical Case History (BCH) questionnaire, arose in 1947, which took into account not only confessions of deviant behavior but also attitudes of the test subjects (“How far can you trust people?”).

Attitude and trait-based integrity tests

The development of the integrity test split into two research directions, the attitude-oriented and the property-oriented type. The precedent for the attitude-oriented type was the Biographical Case History , from which the Reid Report was to emerge as a civilian version in 1951 . Because of its direct questioning and the clear, often easily understandable intention, this is also referred to as the overt type. The test was named after its developer, the lawyer JE Reid, and examines the applicant's attitudes and values ​​with regard to deviant behavior. Consider possible questions u. a. the “assessment of the spread of dishonest behavior” and “one's own honesty in specific situations”. The Reid Report was checked using control questions and the systematic use of polygraphy ( lie detectors ). A high level of agreement with the result of the test was then achieved. Polygraphy was a widely used means of personnel selection until the Employee Polygraph Protection Act 1988 in the USA, but it was extremely dubious in terms of validation.

The second type examines the integrity of an applicant through their characteristics or their characteristics. The pioneer in this regard was the Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB), which queries broader personality traits. It was developed by H. Cough and largely refers to the socialization items of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) from 1957. It is intended to capture a wayward impulse (English stubbornness , unpredictability). The test procedure was also validated on the basis of job-related criteria such as the manager's assessment .

Development of the instrument

Impact hypothesis

The impact hypotheses on which the integrity test is based are decisive for the development of the instrument. According to this, integrity has a positive effect on the prediction of counterproductive behavior, particularly with regard to absenteeism, theft of employees and the expected work performance. According to a meta-analysis of 23 studies with 7,550 participants, there is a strong correlation between general work performance and the result of all integrity tests with 0.41. Detected theft was predicted with 0.13 by the attitude-related integrity tests (this figure underestimates the real explanation of variance due to the high number of unreported cases and only a small number of thefts discovered). Unfortunately, data for predicting theft based on property testing are not available. For both types of integrity test, there is a positive association with counterproductive behavior (0.30). Interestingly, therefore, it can be stated that integrity tests predict work performance better than the criterion of theft, for which they were originally designed. With regard to absenteeism (unfounded absences), the results for property-oriented tests are significant at 0.33, while attitude-oriented tests show only 0.09. This can be justified by the design and suitability of the tests: In contrast to overt tests, property -oriented tests are more extensive and are not specifically geared towards the criterion of “theft”.

There are different components as a prerequisite for integrity per se, but since integrity tests are based on the analysis of traits and behaviors. B. to consider the five factor model of personality theory . According to this, integrity can be composed of various dimensions and their facets. The characteristics of the dimensions of conscientiousness, tolerance and emotional stability are strongly related to the results of the integrity tests. Individuals who are unreliable, dishonest and untrustworthy are overall “poorer” workers and often behave counterproductively. Gottfredson and Hirschi , on the other hand, see the lack of self-control as a reason for criminal behavior in the workplace. In their view, self-control as a heterogeneous product consists of six sub-dimensions. Partly overlap with the five-factor model and its dimensions.

Choice of criteria

The selection of items and their characteristics turned out to be inconsistent between the various tests. In a comparative study by Wanek et al. (2003), 23 different components can be derived from seven integrity tests with a total of 798 items. Three attitude-based tests and four trait-based tests were included in the study. These 23 components can be found in four overarching components: Antisocial behavior , socialization, positive basic attitude and compliance with rules / diligence. Antisocial behavior focuses on items related to theft, rule violations, and misconduct. Socialization, on the other hand, harbors success orientation, self-control, emotional stability, extraversion and positive private life. A positive attitude relates to the worldview, the willingness to take risks and the assessment of dishonesty. The fourth higher-level component relates to compliance and diligence. Correlations between these four superordinate components and the dimensions of the five-factor model of personality theory were demonstrated by Wanek (2003), according to which conscientiousness and emotional stability are closely related to the four components. Possible items according to the personality inventory for integrity assessment (PIA) are behavioral intentions with integrity , renouncement of justifications, presumptions of integrity, trust, calmness, reliability, avoidance of danger, integration behavior and peacefulness.

Validation of the tests

The criteria side turns out to be the biggest problem with regard to validity . According to Sackett and Harris (1984), five validation strategies can be used to check the validity of the criteria, but they can also be used because they tend to overestimate or underestimate the predictive quality. As already mentioned, it is possible to use contrast groups to compare the test values ​​between a group of less integrity (prisoners) and the normal population. From a statistical point of view, however, this method is less suitable due to the bimodal distribution of characteristics in the overall sample, as it leads to an overestimation of the validity. Polygraphy is no longer used today because of its own questionable validity and legal restrictions (e.g. in Germany). Written admissions as a measure of deviant behavior are common. However, due to the content of the integrity test overlapping, they can be overinterpreted as a predicator with the criterion. As a result, the values ​​found are classified more as reliability values. Another validation strategy is based on external criteria. The test values ​​are related to externally determined behavior, e.g. B. revealed theft. However, since the majority of employee thefts go undetected, an exact assessment is not possible. The strongest argument in favor of integrity tests, on the other hand, is longitudinal studies at the organizational level. These refer to inventory differences, absenteeism statistics or staff turnover before and after the introduction of integrity tests. Here, however, the examination of the company as a whole cannot be related to individual test results.

Construct validity appears to be a poorly researched area, but according to a study by Ones (1993), which evaluated more than 600 validity coefficients, the statement can be made that integrity tests have generalized information, at least with regard to work performance. Many questions remain open during this, e.g. B. To what extent counterproductivity and dishonesty can be explained by aptitude tests. There are considerable problems and deficits in attempting to produce evidence. Individual studies at least provide information on basic assumptions. Brandstätter (1989) showed u. a. that counterproductive behavior (criminal offenses, alcohol consumption, aggressiveness) occurs with great long-term stability.

There are also findings that indicate that honesty is mostly consistent. Disturbing variables can, however, be given in the form of a false conscience on the part of the test person, impression management and response tendencies based on social desirability.

Application of the instrument

Implementation and execution of the test

Integrity tests are used for competence-based personnel selection and are therefore used before new employees are hired. The tests can be used for both internal and external personnel selection. The literature does not recommend using the tests for personnel development, since integrity is seen as a personality trait that is stable over time and should not be dependent on situational framework conditions. Accordingly, feedback on individual integrity test results is not suitable for the purpose of changing behavior and - similar to the results of intelligence tests - can lead to sensitive perceptions in those affected.

Integrity tests should e.g. B. only check the integrity at the workplace and thus prevent actions that lead to damage to the organization and its members. This context-specific formulation can increase the criteria-related validity. In addition, the process transparency of the selection tool is intended to achieve a higher level of acceptance among the test subjects.

Due to the high level of effort, the tests are not developed and carried out by a company itself, but by external service providers; an exception to this are computer resp. web-based procedures that can be carried out directly by companies and automatically evaluated. As a rule, however, the tests are not individually adapted to the respective company, since the validation of the "integrity" construct is based on general use across several professional groups.

Integrity tests are mostly so-called paper-and-pencil tests. But there are also web-based implementations that can be specified via a two-stage process (short version online on the Internet, long version in a protected environment and with verification of the personal identity at the company). The applicant receives a given number of questions or statements that he has to assess using a given scale. The implementation is computer-based as well as the classic paper version, as an individual assessment or in groups up to the size of a lecture hall. The time requirements depend on the length of the test (number of questions). However, the applicant is not put under pressure by a time limit. It normally takes about twenty to thirty minutes to carry out the test, including briefing by an experimenter (PIA takes 12 minutes, PIT 25 minutes, but it covers more personality dimensions). With the online version, the test results are evaluated immediately; with the paper version, additional time must be allowed for the evaluation (by scanner or manually). The measured integrity of the applicant can be shown both as an overall value and in relation to the individual dimensions of the test.

Alternative uses of the tests have since been investigated. Research was conducted into whether there were advantages in performing the tests orally or by telephone. The studies by Hollwitz (1998) or Jones, Brasher and Huff (2002) came to the result that the alternative variants provide almost the same values ​​as the conventional ones. However, the verbal or telephone implementation is associated with more effort, as there are costs for additional interviewers. Alternative applications are therefore not recommended, as better results cannot be achieved at higher costs.

With regard to the legal framework in Germany, it should be noted that the test person must consent to the test and attitude-oriented questions may not be asked. Open-ended questions such as “Have you ever stolen from your employer?” Are inadmissible under labor law, while the assessment of attribute-oriented claims such as “Are you more sensible than adventurous?” Is permitted. In the US, both types of questions are allowed. As in Germany, polygraphy is prohibited there as part of personnel selection.

Assessment of the design parameters

The following comparison shows how different the acceptance of the integrity tests can be: While in the USA applicants sometimes insist on measuring their integrity, in Germany the tests are mainly based on negative aspects such as B. associated with listening. This is why it is more difficult for companies in Germany to use the tests for their personnel selection. In view of their empirical evidence of benefits, however, the degree of prevalence is increasing steadily, also in large-scale industry and banking.

German-language procedures

  • Inventory of Occupational Attitudes and Self- Assessments (IBES) (Marcus, B., 2006); publicly accessible process in Hogrefe-Verlag
  • Personality Inventory for Integrity Assessment (PIA) (S&F Personalpsychologie, 2000); unpublished - can only be obtained directly from the provider
  • Psychological Integrity Test (PIT) (Team Psychology & Security, 2005); unpublished - can only be obtained directly from the provider

All tests were developed by scientists (IBES: Bernd Marcus, University of Western Ontario ; PIA: Heinz Schuler , University of Hohenheim ; PIT: Jens Hoffmann , TU Darmstadt ).

Conclusion and criticism

The biggest criticism in relation to the integrity tests is the theoretical foundation of the tests. Much of the testing was designed without a theory of integrity in place. Thus, attempts at explanation must be made post hoc, such as this z. B. has been attempted by meta-analyzes. It was only in tests that were developed from the late 1990s onwards that attention was paid to a sufficiently theoretical basis.

It is still controversial to what extent behavior with integrity is dependent on characteristics or situation. While it is generally assumed that integrity is not dependent on the situation, e.g. For example, it can be proven that thefts in a company can be contained by a good corporate information policy. This would limit the prognostic capabilities of the integrity tests. In addition, the financial situation of an employee should not affect his theft behavior. The interaction of the variables “person” and “situation” has not yet been researched.

The integrity tests are also mainly criticized in relation to ethical questions. The stigmatization of rejected applicants as “thieves” is seen as particularly problematic in this context . The definition of counterproductive behavior as the basis from which an applicant can be viewed as having lack of integrity can be narrowly and broadly. Does it start with a single delay or does a criminal offense in the form of theft have to be present first? In this context, the proponents of the tests put forward the argument that the results of the tests will be treated confidentially. In a constitutional state , however, it must be possible to rule out “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the applicant has proven himself to be honest in the workplace.

In the meantime there is also scientific evidence that the undetectable manipulation of the tests is possible in your own favor. Although there has not yet been any research into the extent to which the study participants use this option, this severely limits the usefulness of the integrity tests.

literature

Monographs

Articles from anthologies

  • Colette Friedrich: Trust as a company resource . In: Albert Martin (ed.): Personnel as a resource . Munich / Mering 2003, pp. 119-139.
  • Anja Schmidt: Sensation seeking and delinquent behavior . In: M. Roth, P. Hammelstein (eds.): Sensation Seeking - Conception Diagnostics and Application . Goettingen 2003.

Articles from newspapers and magazines

  • Christopher M. Berry, Deniz S. Ones, Paul Sackett: Interpersonal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, and Their Common Correlates: A Review and Meta-Analysis . In: Journal of Applied Psychology . Vol. 92, no. 2, 2007, pp. 410-424.
  • Michael R. Cunningham: Test-Taking Motivations and Outcomes on a standardized Measure of On-The-Job Integrity . In: Journal of Business and Psychology . Vol. 4, No. 1, 1989, pp. 119-127.
  • Jens Hoffmann, Andreas Mokros, Rüdiger Wilmer: Dimensions of Deviance . In: Police & Science . 1/2006, pp. 59-63.
  • Bernd Marcus: Newer findings on the inventory of job-related attitudes and self-assessments . In: Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie , vol. 6, pp. 129–132.
  • Bernd Marcus, Kibeom Kibeom, Michael C. Aschton: Personality Dimensions explaining Relationships between Integrity Tests and Counterproductive Behavior: Big Five, or one in Addition? In: Personnel Psychology . Vol. 60, 2007, pp. 1-34.
  • Kathleen M. May, Brenda H. Loyd: Honesty Tests in Academia and Business: a comparative Study . In: Research in Higher Education . Vol. 35, No. 4, 1994, pp. 499-511.
  • Kevin R. Murphy, Sandra L. Lee: Personality Variables related to Integrity Test Scores: The Role of Conscientiousness . In: Journal of Business and Psychology . Vol. 8, No. 4, 1994, pp. 413-424.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Deniz S. Ones, Chockalingam Viswesvaran: Integrity Tests and Other Criterion-Focused Occupational Personality Scales (COPS) Used in Personnel Selection . In: International Journal of Selection and Assessment . Vol. 9, No. 1/2, 2001, pp. 31-39.
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Bernd Marcus, Uwe Funke, Heinz Schuler: Integrity tests as a special group of aptitude diagnostic procedures: literature overview and meta-analytical findings on construct validity . In: Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Vol. 41, 1997, pp. 2-11.
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g Bernd Marcus: Counterproductive behavior in the company. An individual perspective . Göttingen u. a. 2000.
  4. ↑ Jens Hoffmann, Rüdiger Wilmer: Heuristics instead of gut feeling . In: CD Security Management . 5/2005, pp. 144-148.
  5. ↑ a b c d e Andreas Frintrup, Heinz Schuler, Patrick Mussel: Opportunities make thieves? - Professional integrity diagnostics with PIA . In: Business Psychology Current . 4/2004, pp. 58-61.
  6. ↑ a b c d Patrick Mussel: Personality Inventory for Integrity Assessment (PIA) . In: John Erpenbeck , Lutz von Rosenstiel (ed.): Handbook of competence measurement . Stuttgart 2003, pp. 3-18.
  7. ↑ Handelsblatt: In search of the incorruptible , April 16, 2007.
  8. ^ Eva Tenzer: Integrity. What is the "white vest check" good for? In: Economy and Further Education . 10/2005, pp. 46-48.
  9. ↑ a b c Deniz S. Ones, Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Frank L. Schmidt: Meta-analysis of Integrity Tests Validities . In: Journal of Applied Psychology . Vol. 78, 1993, pp. 679-693.
  10. ↑ Deniz S. Ones, Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Frank L. Schmidt: Personality and Absenteeism: a Meta-Analysis of Integrity Tests . In: European Journal of Personality . Vol. 17, 2003, pp. 19-38
  11. ↑ Bernd Marcus, Stefan Höft, Michaela Riediger: Integrity Tests and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A Review and Empirical Test of two Alternative Positions . In: International Journal of Selection and Assessment . Vol. 14, No. 2, 2006, pp. 113-128.
  12. ↑ Michael Gottfredson, Travis Hirschi: A general Theory of Crime . Stanford 1990.
  13. ↑ James Wanek, Paul Sackett, Deniz S. Ones: Towards an Understanding of Integrity Test Similarities and Differences . In: Personnel Psychology . 2003, Vol. 56, pp. 873-894.
  14. ^ Hermann Brandstätter: Stability and changeability of personality traits . In: Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Vol. 33, 1989, pp. 12-20.
  15. ↑ Bernd Marcus, Heinz Schuler: Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work. A general perspective . In: Journal of Applied Psychology . Vol. 89, 2004, pp. 647-660.
  16. ^ A b Christopher M. Berry, Raul R. Sackett, Shelly Wiemann: A Review of Recent Developments in Integrity Test Research . In: Personnel Psychology . Vol. 60, 2007, pp. 271-301.
  17. ↑ a b Thomas Reinhold: The Corruption Test . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . March 3, 2007, p. 53.