© 2013 Cengage Learning
References and
Testing
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Why Check References?
•
•
•
•
Check for resume fraud
Find new information about the applicant
Check for potential discipline problems
Predict future performance
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Checking for Resume Fraud
• Why Check?
– 1/3 resumes contain
inaccurate info
– over 500,000 people
have bonus degrees
• Verifying Information
–
–
–
–
truth
error
embellishment
fabrication
• Obtaining Missing
information
– unintentional omission
– strategic omission
– deceptive omission
• Alternative methods
– bogus application items
– social security reports
– hire professional
reference checkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u7WBlSIXWI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09DU_cXkR8
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Getting Info Can Be Difficult
Type of Information
Employment dates
Eligible for re-hire
Salary history
Reason for leaving
Performance
Employability
Work habits
People skills
% Asking
97
64
66
94
86
% Releasing
98
42
41
19
18
16
13
11
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Finding New Information
About the Applicant
• Types of Information
–
–
–
–
personality
interpersonal style
background
work habits
• Problems
– references seldom agree
– people act in different
ways in different
situations
• Alternative Measures
– psychological tests
– letters of
recommendation
– biodata
– resumes
– interviews
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Checking for Potential Discipline
Problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criminal Records
Previous employers
Motor vehicle records
Military records
Credit reports
Colleges and universities
Neighbors and friends
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Criminal Records
• Obtained from local and state agencies
• Check with each jurisdiction
• Only convictions can be used (EEOC Decision No. 721460)
– “Reasonable amount of time” between release and
decision to hire
– In using convictions, employer must consider
• Nature and gravity of offense
• Amount of time that has passed since the conviction and/or
completion of the sentence
• The nature of the job held or being sought
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Credit Checks
• Purpose
– Predict motivation to steal
– Determine character of applicant
• Fair Credit Reporting Act
–
–
–
–
Order through a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA)
Provide written notice to applicant to you will be checking credit
Get applicant’s written authorization to check credit
If adverse action is to be taken
• Provide applicant with “Pre-adverse Action Disclosure” which includes
copy of credit report
• Inform applicant that they will not be hired due to credit check and
provide name of CRA and notice of applicant rights to appeal within 60
days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=512GkwoZEFs
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Future Performance
• References are not good predictors of performance
– Uncorrected validity is .18
• References are not reliable (r = .22)
– High correlation between two letters written by the same person for
two people than between letters written by two people for the same
person
– They say more about the person writing the letter than the person
being written about
• References are lenient
– Fewer than 1% of applicants are rated below average!
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Why the Leniency?
• Applicants often choose their own
references
• Applicants often have the right to
see their files
• Former employers fear legal
ramifications
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Positive
Neutral
Negative
© 2013 Cengage Learning
References Often Have a Limited
Opportunity to View Behavior
Recalled
Remembered
Processed
%
Observed
Behavior
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Potential Legal Ramifications
• Negligent hiring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQeHuAe4E4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozMVeRT3pec
• Invasion of privacy
• Negligent reference
• Defamation
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Defamation
• Three types
– libel (written)
– slander (oral)
– self-publication
• Employers have a conditional privilege that
limits their liability
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Avoiding Liability for Defamation
Employers will not be liable if their
statements were
• Truthful
– statements were true
– not true, but reasonable
person would have believed
them to be true
– opinions are protected
unless reference infers
opinion is based on facts
that don’t exist
• Made for a legitimate
purpose
• Made in good faith
– don’t offer unsolicited
information
– statements cannot be made
for revenge
– avoid personal comments
• Made with the permission
of the applicant
– use waivers
– let the former employee
know if the reference will not
be positive
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Extraneous Factors Surrounding
the Reference
• Reference giver’s
ability to articulate
• The extent to which
the referee remembers
the applicant
• The words used by the
reference giver
– cuter than a baby’s butt
– she has no sexual oddities
that I am aware of
– I have an intimate and
caring relationship with
the applicant
– Jill is a bud that has
already begun to bloom
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Real Meaning of Recommendations
Recommendation
Actual Meaning
He is a man of great vision
He is definitely a man to watch
She merits a close look
He’s the kind of employee you can
swear by
She doesn’t mind being disturbed
He hallucinates
I don’t trust him
Don’t let her out of your sight
He likes dirty jokes
When he worked for us, he was
given many citations
She gives every appearance of
being a loyal, dedicated employee
She spent 10 years in a mental
hospital
He was arrested several times
But, appearances are deceiving
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Real Meaning of Recommendations
Recommendation
Actual Meaning
If I were you I would give him
sweeping responsibilities
She commands the respect of
everyone with whom she works
He can handle a broom
I am sure that whatever task he
undertakes, no matter how small,
he will be fired with enthusiasm
He will foul up any project
You would be very lucky to get
this person to work for you
She is lazy
But she rarely gets it
You will never catch him asleep on He is too crafty to get caught
the job
© 2013 Cengage Learning
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personnel Selection Methods
• Skills
• Training & Education
– Work Samples
• Experience
– Assessment Centers
– Applications/Resumes
– References
– Biodata
• Personality & Character
– Interviews
– Personality Tests
• Knowledge
– Integrity Tests
• Ability
• Medical
– Cognitive
– Medical Exams
– Physical
– Psychological Exams
– Perceptual
– Drug Testing
© 2013 Cengage Learning
What types of employment tests have
you taken?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using
Training and Education
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Ratings of Training
• Education
• Work-Related Training
• Military
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Does Education
Predict
Performance?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Summary of Meta-Analyses
Meta-analysis
Aamodt (2002)
Vineberg & Joyner (1982)
Ng & Feldman (2009)
Hunter (1980)
Hunter & Hunter (1984)
Schmidt & Hunter (1998)
Dunnette (1972)
Occupation K
Police
38
Military
35
Many
85
N
ρ
9,007
.34
.25
47,125
.09
USES data
base
425 32,124
.10
Entry level
petroleum
15
.00
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Education and Incremental Validity
• Schmidt & Hunter (1998) say no
– Cognitive ability (r = .51)
– Cognitive ability and education (r = .52)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of GPA
• GPA is a valid predictor of performance on the
job, training performance, starting salary,
promotions, and grad school performance
• GPA is most predictive in the first few years after
graduation (Roth et al., 1996)
• GPA will result in high levels (d=.78) of adverse
impact (Roth & Bobko, 2000)
• People with high GPAs
– Are intelligent (r = .50; Jensen, 1980)
– Are conscientious (r = .34; Bevier et al., 1998)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of GPA
Meta-Analysis Results
r
ρ
Job performance (Roth et al., 1996)
.16
.36
Training performance (Dye & Reck, 1989)
.29
Promotions (Cohen, 1984)
.16
Work-Related Criteria
Salary (Roth & Clarke, 1996)
Starting salary
.13
.20
Current salary
.18
.28
Grades
.28
.30
Faculty ratings
.25
.35
Graduate School Performance (Kuncel et al., 2001)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Lingering Questions
• Is the validity of education job specific?
• What is the actual incremental validity of
education over cognitive ability?
• Why would education predict performance?
–
–
–
–
Knowledge
Liberal arts skills
Mental ability
Motivation
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using
Applicant Knowledge
•
•
•
•
Taps job-related knowledge
Good validity (ρ = .48)
Face valid
Can have adverse impact
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using
Applicant Ability
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
• High validity (ρ = .51)
• Predicts training and job performance
for all jobs (Hunter, 1986)
• The more complex the job, the better
cognitive ability tests predict
performance
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
Strengths
– Highest validity of all selection
measures (ρ = .51)
– Easy to administer
– Relatively inexpensive
– Most are not time consuming
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
Weaknesses
– Likely to cause adverse
impact
– Low face validity
– Not well liked by applicants
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Perceptual Ability Tests
• Perceptual Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)
–
–
–
–
Vision (near, far, night, peripheral)
Depth perception
Glare sensitivity
Hearing (sensitivity, auditory attention, sound
localization)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Psychomotor Ability Tests
• Psychomotor Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Dexterity (finger, manual)
Control precision
Multilimb coordination
Response control
Reaction time
Arm-hand steadiness
Wrist-finger speed
Speed-of-limb movement
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Physical Ability
• Used for jobs with high physical demands
• Three Issues
– Job relatedness
– Passing scores
– When the ability must be present
• Two common ways to measure
– Simulations
– Physical agility tests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfqWGWzrfI
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Physical Ability
Physical Abilities (Fleishman & Reilly, 1992)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Dynamic strength (strength requiring repetitions)
Trunk strength (stooping or bending over)
Explosive strength (jumping or throwing)
Static strength
Dynamic flexibility (speed of bending or stretching)
Extent flexibility (Degree of bending or stretching)
Gross body equilibrium (balance)
Gross body coordination (coordination)
Stamina
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using
Applicant Skill
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Work Samples
• Applicants perform tasks that replicate actual
job tasks
• Advantages
– Directly related to the job
– Good criterion validity
• Verbal work samples (ρ = .48)
• Motor work samples (ρ = .43)
– Good face validity
– Less adverse impact than cognitive ability
– Provide realistic job previews
• Disadvantages
– Can be expensive to develop and maintain
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Assessment Centers
What are They?
• A selection technique that uses multiple job-related
assessment exercises and multiple assessors to
observe and record behaviors of candidates
performing job-related tasks
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Guidelines for Assessment Center Practices
Joiner (2000)
• Based on job analysis
• Behavioral
classification
• Assessment techniques
• Use multiple
assessment exercises
• Simulations
•
•
•
•
•
Use multiple assessors
Assessor training
Recording behavior
Reports
Overall judgment
based on integration of
information
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Assessment Center Exercises
• Leaderless group discussions
• In-basket technique
• Simulations
– Situational exercises
– Work samples
• Role plays
• Case analyses and business
games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyWxjNECRBE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eKuQ-RcHqY
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Assessment Centers
Reliability
– Can have low inter-rater agreement among raters
– Test/retest reliability pretty high (.70)
Validity (Arthur et al., 2003)
– Uncorrected .28
– Corrected .38
– Good face validity
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Assessment Centers
Weaknesses
–
–
–
–
Very expensive
Time consuming
Can have low inter-rater agreement
Behaviors can overlap into several
dimensions
– Safety of candidates for some work
samples
© 2013 Cengage Learning
When are assessment centers most appropriate?
– Most useful for promotion rather than selection
– When candidates have some knowledge of the job
– When you have the money to develop and maintain
assessment centers
– When you have the time and trainers
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using
Prior Experience
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience Ratings
• Past behavior predicts future behavior
– Experience is a valid predictor of future
performance (ρ = .27; Quinones et al.,
1995)
• Types of Experience
– Work
– Life
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience
• Evaluated through:
–
–
–
–
–
Application blanks
Resumes
Interviews
Reference checks
Biodata instruments
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience
• Considerations
– How much experience?
– How well did the person perform?
– How related is it to the current job?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience Predicts Best…
• Credit prior work experience only:
– In the same occupational area as that in which performance is to be
predicted
– In the performance of tasks or functions that have direct
application on the job
• Recency of experience should be used as a decision rule for awarding
credit only when justified on a case-by-case basis
• Credit for duration of work experience should be limited to a few
years.
• High prediction up to about 3 years of experience, declining to low
prediction for more than 12 years of experience.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience for Selection: Some
Concerns
• Sullivan (2000) claims that “experience in solving ‘past
problems’ is rapidly losing its applicability to current and
future problems.”
• Organizations will increase their applicant pool if they
delete the “ancient history” requirements (i.e. “Ten years
experience required”).
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Sullivan (2000)
1) Reduce or eliminate the number of years required in your
ads and replace them with “the demonstrated ability to
solve problems with our required level of difficulty.
2) Use simulations and actual problems to assess applicants.
3) Develop “future-oriented” questions for applicants.
4) Train evaluators and compensation professionals to put
less weight on experience of candidates.
5) Revise job descriptions to include level of difficulty.
6) Identify the amount and type of experience and
competencies that would predict job performance.
7) Check to see if there is a correlation between the number
of years of experience an employee has and their success
in your firm.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience: Some More Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Performance matters
“Haven’t done” doesn’t mean “can’t do”
Experience has a shelf life
Listing something on a resume is not experience
Where you get your experience matters
Experience does not guarantee success
Experience is expensive
More experience might be bad (old ways and
ideas)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Biodata
A selection method that considers an
applicant’s life, school, military,
community, and work experience
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Example of Biodata Items
Member of high school student government?
Yes
No
Number of jobs in past 5 years?
1
2
3-5
More than 5
Transportation to work:
Walk
Bus
Bike Own Car Other
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Development of Biodata Items
•
•
•
•
•
Choose a job
Create pool of potential biodata items
Choose a criterion to measure behavior
Prescreen items and test on employees
Retest items on second sample of
employees
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Biodata Standards
Gandy & Dye, 1989; Mael, 1991
Good Biodata Items
Bad Biodata Items
Historical
How old were you when you got
your first paying job?
Future or Hypothetical
What position do you think you will
be holding in 10 years?
External
Did you ever get fired from a job?
Internal
What is your attitude toward friends
who smoke marijuana?
Objective
How many hours did you study for
your bar exam?
Subjective
Would you describe yourself as
shy?
First-hand
Second-hand
How punctual are you about coming How would your teachers describe
to work?
your punctuality?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Good Biodata Items
Bad Biodata Items
Discrete
At what age did you get your driver’s
license?
Summative
How many hours do you study during an
average week?
Verifiable
What was your grade point average in
college?
Non-verifiable
How may servings of fresh vegetables do
you eat everyday?
Controllable
How many tries did it take you to pass
the CPA exam?
Non-controllable
How many brothers and sisters do you
have?
Equal Access
Were you ever class president?
Non-equal Access
Were you ever captain of the football team?
Job Relevant
How many units of cereal did you sell
during the last calendar year?
Not job relevant
Are you proficient at crossword puzzles?
Noninvasive
Were you on the tennis team in college?
Invasive
How many young children do you have at
home?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Biodata Scoring
Variable
Long
Tenure (%)
Short
Differences Unit Weight
Tenure (%)
in %
Education
High School
40
80
-40
-1
Bachelor’s
59
15
+44
+1
Masters
1
5
-4
0
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Strengths of Biodata
– Good validity (r = .36, ρ= .51)
– Can predict for variety of
criterion measures
– Easy to administer
– Relatively inexpensive
– Fairly valid
– Can have good face validity
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Weaknesses of Biodata
–
–
–
–
–
Low face validity
Can invade privacy
Items can be offensive
Expensive to develop
Not always practical to
develop
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity Issues
• Shrinkage?
• Good validity but not sure why
• Validity seems to drop when items based
rationally (job analysis) rather than
empirically
© 2013 Cengage Learning
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personality Inventories
Personality is a collection of traits that
persist across time and situations and
differentiate one person from another
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Differences in Personality
Inventories
• Types of Personality Inventories
– Measures of normal personality
– Measures of psychopathology
• Basis for Personality Dimensions
– Theory based
– Statistically based
– Empirically based
• Scoring
– Objective
– Projective
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Five-Factor Model (The Big 5)
Openness to Experience
– imaginative, curious, cultured
Conscientiousness
– organized, disciplined, careful
Extraversion
– outgoing, gregarious, fun-loving
Agreeableness
– trusting, cooperative, flexible
Neuroticism (emotional stability)
– anxious, insecure, vulnerable to stress
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of Personality
Meta-Analysis
Hurtz & Donovan
(2003)
Barrick & Mount
(1991)
Tett et al. (1991)
Dimension
Observed
True
Observed
True
Observed
True
Openness
.03
.06
.03
.04
.18
.24
Conscientiousness
.15
.24
.13
.22
.12
.16
Extroversion
.06
.09
.08
.13
.10
.13
Agreeableness
.07
.12
.04
.07
.22
.28
- .09
- .15
- .05
- .08
- .15
- .19
Neuroticism
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Comparison of Meta-Analyses
Conscientiousness
Hurtz & Donovan
(2003)
Barrick & Mount
(1991)
Tett et al. (1991)
Only those
developed to tap
Big 5
Any test that could
be assigned to a Big
5 dimension
Only studies in
which a Big 5
dimension was
hypothesized to be
related to
performance
k
42
123
7
n
7,342
19,721
450
.15
.13
.12
Types of studies
included in metaanalysis
Observed validity
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Personality
Strengths
–
–
–
–
Relatively cheap
Easy to administer
Little adverse impact
Predicts best when based on a
job analysis
Weaknesses
– Scale development
– Validity
– Faking
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Interest Inventories
• Tap an applicant’s interest in particular
types of work or careers
• Poor predictors of job performance (ρ = .13)
• Better predictors of job satisfaction
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Integrity Tests
• Estimate the probability that applicants
will steal money or merchandise
• Used mostly in retail, but gaining
acceptance for other occupations
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Types of Integrity Tests
Electronic Testing
• Polygraph testing
Paper and Pencil Testing
• Overt
• Personality based
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Polygraph Testing
• Polygraph (lie detector) is a machine that
measures the physiological responses that
accompany the verbal responses an individual
makes to a direct questions asked by
polygraph operator.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Limitations of the Polygraph
• Emotions other than
guilt can trigger
responses
• Countermeasures used
to avoid detection
• Frequency of false
positives
• Frequency of false
negatives
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Legal Guidelines for Polygraph
Testing
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
makes it illegal to:
• Directly or indirectly require an employee to take a
polygraph
• Use, accept, refer to, or inquire about the results of any
polygraph test of any applicant or employee
• Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or deny
employment or promotion to (or threaten such actions)
against any prospective or current employee who
refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to a
polygraph
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Legal Guidelines for Polygraph
Testing
The following are exempt from these prohibitions
– Private employers providing security services
– Employers who manufacture, distribute, or dispense
controlled substances
– Federal, state, and local government employees.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Paper and Pencil Integrity Tests
Overt integrity tests
• Directly ask for attitudes about theft and
occurrences of theft behavior
Personality based measures
• Measure traits linked to several theft related
employee behaviors that are detrimental to the
organization
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Overt Integrity Tests
Rationale is to measure job applicants’ attitudes and cognitions
toward theft that might predispose them to steal at work,
especially when both the need and opportunity to steal are
present.
Research has shown that the “typical” employee-thief:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is more tempted to steal
Engages in many of the common rationalizations for theft
Would punish thieves less
Often thinks about theft related activities
Attributes more theft to others
Shows more inter-thief loyalty
Is more vulnerable to peer pressure to steal than an honest employee
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personality-Based Integrity
Measures
Employee theft is just one element in a
larger syndrome of antisocial behavior of
organizational delinquency. Therefore,
overt integrity tests overlook a number of
other counterproductive behaviors that are
costly to the organization
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Other Behaviors Integrity Tests Can
Predict
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drug and alcohol abuse
Vandalism
Sabotage
Assault behaviors
Insubordination
Absenteeism
Excessive grievances
Bogus workers compensation claims
Violence
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Validity and Reliability of Integrity
Tests
Validity
• Theft
• .41 for predicting probability of theft by employees
• Performance (Ones et al. 1993)
• Observed = .21
• True = .34
Reliability
• Reports of test-retest reliabilities between .90-.70
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Integrity Tests
• Advantages
–
–
–
–
Good validity (ρ = .34)
Inexpensive to use
Easy to administer
Little to no racial adverse impact
• Disadvantages
– Males have a higher fail rate than females
– Younger people have a higher fail rate than older people
– Failure has a negative psychological impact on
applicants.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Conditional Reasoning Tests
• Designed to reduce faking
• Applicants are given a series of statements and asked to select the
reason that justifies each statement
• Aggressive individuals tend to believe
– most people have harmful intentions behind their behavior (hostile
attribution bias)
– it is important to show strength or dominance in social interactions
(potency bias)
– it is important to retaliate when wronged rather than try to maintain a
relationship (retribution bias)
– powerful people will victimize less powerful individuals (victimization
bias)
– evil people deserve to have bad things happen to them (derogation of
target bias)
– social customs restrict free will and should be ignored (social discounting
bias).
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Graphology
• Concept
– A person’s handwriting is a reflection on his or her personality and
character
• Use
– 6,000 U.S. organizations
– 75% of organizations in France
– 8% of organizations in the United Kingdom
• Evaluation
– Few studies
– Validity depends on the writing sample (Simner & Goffin, 2003)
• Autobiographical (r = .16, p = .22)
• Non-autobiographical (r = .09, p = .12)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Drug Testing
• Use
– In 2001, 80% of U.S. organizations tested for drugs
– In 2003, 4.6% of applicants tested positive for drugs
– In 2007, 8.2% of employees admitted to using drugs in
the past month
• Drug users are more likely to
–
–
–
–
Miss work
Use health care benefits
Be fired
Have an accident
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Drug Testing
Forms of Testing
–
–
–
–
Pre-employment testing
Random selection at predetermined times
Random selection at random times
Testing after an accident or disciplinary action
Responses to the Presence of Drugs
– 98% of job offers withdrawn
– Current employees who test positive
• 25% are fired after a positive test
• 66% are referred to counseling and treatment
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Two Stages of Drug Testing
• Initial screening of hair or urine
– Cheaper method (about $50)
– Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT)
– Radioimmunoassay (RIA)
• Confirmation test
– Typically used only after a positive initial screening
– Thin layer chromatography/mass spectrometry
– More expensive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLDkXj4K2A
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Should Organizations Test for Drugs?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Typical Corrected Validity Coefficients for
Selection Techniques
Method
Validity
Method
Validity
Structured Interview
.57
References
.29
Cognitive ability
.51
Experience
.27
Biodata
.51
Situational judgment tests
.26
Job knowledge
.48
Conscientiousness
.24
Work samples (verbal)
.48
Unstructured interviews
.20
Assessment centers
.38
Interest inventories
.10
Integrity tests
.34
Handwriting analysis
.02
College grades
.32
Projective personality tests
.00
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Adverse Impact
Technique
WhiteBlack
WhiteHispanic
Cognitive ability
1.10
.72
GPA
.78
Roth & Bobko (2000)
Work sample
.73
Roth et al. (2008)
Assessment centers
.52
.28
Dean et al. (2008)
Job knowledge
.48
.47
Roth et al. (2003)
Situational judgment
.38
.24
Whetzel et al. (2008)
Biodata
.33
Bobko et al. (1999)
Structured interview
.23
Huffcutt & Roth (1998)
Recommendations
.22
Aamodt (2002)
Personality
.09
Schmitt et al. (1996)
References
.08
Aamodt & Williams (2005)
Integrity tests
.07
-.05
Meta-analysis
Roth et al. (2001)
Ones & Viswesvaran (1998)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Applied Case Study:
New London, CT Police Department
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Focus on Ethics
Using Personality Inventories
• In your class, your professor will probably ask you to take
the Employee Personality Inventory in your workbook.
After you do, consider whether or not you want your job
performance to be judged based on the results of such a
test. Would you say that this test would fairly predict your
ability to perform in certain jobs?
• Does it accurately portray how you would fit into an
organization’s culture or how you would get along with
others? If it doesn’t accurately portray you, would you then
say such a test is
• unethical?
• Should the tests be better regulated? Are companies right
in using them in their selection process?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Focus on Ethics
Using Personality Inventories
• Do you see any other ethical concerns
related to using personality inventories?
• Is there a fairer and more ethical way for
companies to determine if applicants will fit
into the organizational culture and get along
with others?