By: Heather Lomason, Ashley Frazier
& Daniel Ratti
April 22, 2010
Overview
 Definition of Integrity Tests
 Examples of Integrity Tests
 Advantages of Integrity Tests
 Disadvantages of Integrity Tests
 Main Controversies Surrounding
Integrity Tests
 Limitations of the Method
Definition of Integrity Tests
 A paper and pencil, self-report test developed
to predict employee theft potential and other
counterproductive behaviors (Wanek, 1999).
 Used with current employees and/or preemployment applicant screening (Wanek,
1999).
 Two categories of integrity tests
 Overt integrity tests
 Personality-based integrity tests
Overt or Personality-based Integrity
Tests
 “What is the dollar amount of money or merchandise
you have taken from your current employer?’
 “Do you believe a person arrested for stealing from
their employer should tell co-workers who helped with
the theft?”
 ‘I am more sensible than adventurous’.
 ‘Have you ever thought of a way to steal something,
but then changed your mind and didn’t take it?’
**Note: Questions are cited an article from Wanek, 1999**
Examples of Integrity Tests
Name of Methods
Descriptions
Personnel Selection
Inventory (PSI)
Measures honesty, tenure, drug avoidance, employeecustomer relations, safety, work values and attitude toward
supervision (Wanek, 1999).
Application Potential
Inventory (API)
Inventory that uses the PSI scale, measuring a variety of jobrelated attitudes and other characteristics. Used to predict
counterproductive work behaviors and hire high performing
employees (Jones, Brasher, & Huff, 2002).
Reid Report
Measures conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional
stability (Fortmann, Leslie, & Cunningham, 2002 ).
Measures conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional
stability. Survey items focus on individual’s history of
dishonest behavior, attitudes toward theft and dishonesty;
estimates the prevalence of theft (Connelly, Lilienfeld, &
Schmeelk, 2006).
Stanton Survey
Personnel Reaction Blank
(PRB)
Measures dependability, conscientiousness, self-restraint,
and social conformity. (Wanek, 1999).
Advantages of Integrity Tests
Validity
 In a study conducted on three different
populations, integrity scores served as
significant predictors of supervisor
perception of job performance and
admissions of counter productivity
(Cunningham, Fortmann, & Leslie, 2002).
 When used as a Situational Judgment Test, this
method typically serves as a good predictor of
job performance (Becker, 2005).
 Although developed for predicting theft,
integrity tests are effective also for predicting
overall performance (Ones & Viswesvaran,
2001).
Advantages: Validity (cont.)
 A meta-analysis using 655 validity
coefficients estimated a true
validity of 0.41 across 7,550 people
for supervisory ratings of job
performance (Ones, et al.,1993).
 For predicting broad
counterproductive behaviors, the
mean operational validity of
both overt and personality based
integrity tests is positive and
substantial (0.30´s) (Ones, et al.,
1993).
Advantages: Validity (Cont.)
 A meta-analysis suggested that
integrity test scores are
predictive of job training
performance (r = .38),
production records (r = .28),
accidents at work (r = .52), and
property damage (r = .69)
(Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).
 Has an incremental validity of
0.14 when combined with
cognitive ability tests (Ones &
Viswesvaran, 2001). The
multiple R of combining both is
0.65.
Advantages of Integrity Testing
Reliability
 Little variability across reliability
coefficients (0.78 to 0.82) when used
across different cultures (Argentina,
Mexico, and South Africa)
(Cunningham, Fortmann, & Leslie,
2002).
Cross Cultural Considerations
 The Reid Scale on data from
Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa
revealed results suggesting that
integrity is a stable construct across
cultures (Cunningham, Fortmann, &
Leslie, 2002).
Disadvantages of Integrity Tests
 According to Ones et al. (1993), integrity
tests were developed to predict theft,
however they are more effective in
predicting broad counterproductive
behaviors.
 Applicants may react negatively to being
evaluated on moral grounds.
 Personality based tests have no validity
estimates for the prediction of theft alone,
only for broad counterproductive behaviors
(Ones, et al., 1993).
 Overt Integrity tests may be more closely
related to behaviors than to moral
reasoning.
Main Controversies
 Which type of integrity test provokes more negative
reactions in respondents, overt integrity tests or
personality-based integrity tests? (Whitney, Diaz,
Mineghino, & Powers, 1999).
 Attention by critics has been given primarily on how
integrity predicts externally measured theft, with
disregard for the evidence of test validity for a wide
range of counterproductive behaviors and job
performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).
Main Controversies (cont.)
 Coaching can increase scores
on the unlikely virtues (faking
scale) items but little affect on
the integrity test score (Hurtz
& Alliger, 2002).
 Adverse Impact- women score
.16 standard deviations higher
on overt integrity tests than
men but there is little
difference between age
differences or different
ethnicities (Ones &
Viswesvaran, 1998).
Limitations
 Lack of availability of
validity estimates for
prediction of theft when
using personality-based
integrity tests (Ones &
Viswesvaran, 2001).
 Many studies take place
in different business
settings, thus
comparisons must
consider the limitations
this implies.
Limitations
 When conducting cross-
cultural studies the
interpretation of
translated words can
vary thus affecting the
validity of the tests.
 There is still a lack of
clarity as to how
respondents´
perceptions of integrity
test effects their
subsequent
performance and
general attitudes.
Limitations
 Lack of research studying
the relationship between
job relatedness and
integrity test performance
(Whitney, Diaz, Mineghino,
& Powers, 1999).
 Limited research on
individual differences such
as ethnicity in regards to
perceptions of integrity
tests (Whitney, Diaz,
Mineghino, & Powers,
1999).
Citations
 Becker, T. (2005). Development and validation of situational judgment test
of employee integrity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13





(3), 225-232.
Connelly, B.S., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Schmeelk, K.M. (2006). Integrity tests and
morality: associations with ego development, moral reasoning, and
psychopathic personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
14 (1), 82-86.
Fortmann, K., Leslie, K., & Cunningham, M. (2002). Cross-cultural
comparisons of the Reid Integrity Scale in Latin America and South Africa.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1), 98-108.
Hurtz, G. M. & Alliger, G. M. (2002). Influence of coaching on integrity test
performance and unlikely virtue scale scores. Human Performance, 15(3), 255273.
Jones, J.W., Brasher, E. E., & Huff, J.W. (2002). Innovations in integrity-based
personnel selection: Building a technology-friendly assessment.
International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 78 (1/2), 87-97.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & F.L. Schmidt (1993). Comprehensive metaanalysis of Integrity Test Validities: Findings and implications for personnel
selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78
(4), 679-703.
Citations
 Ones, D. S. & Viswesraran, C. (1998). Gender, age, and race




differences on overt integrity tests: Results across four large-scale
job applicant data sets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 35-42.
Ones, D.S. & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other
criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in
personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9 (1), 31-39.
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Helton, W. B., Strange, J. M., &
Osburn, H. K. (2001). On the construct validity of integrity tests:
Individual and situational factors as predictors of test performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 240-257.
Wanek, J.E. (1999). Integrity and honesty testing: What do we
know? How do we use it? Blackwell Publishers Ltd,7 (4), 183-195.
Whitney, D.J., Diaz, J., Mineghino, M.E. & Powers, K. (1999).
Perceptions of overt and personality-based integrity tests.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 35-45.