[IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector

[Winfred Arthur, Jr]

Ronald, fair enough and concur w/ the points that you make.  but the 
psychometric issue, which is what the DoL text pertained to, is 
different from the political and administrative one.  i believe that is 
the distinction Dennis was alluding to.  so i guess, my summary of the 
discussion (so far) would be that these tests may not be suitable for 
the public sector, not b/c of their alleged psychometric deficiencies 
but b/c of specified political and administrative constraints or 
realities?  would you consider this to be a fair summary?


On 1/2/2014 7:46 PM, Ronald Clare wrote:

> The public nature of all selection decisions we make allow for riskier 

> implications for all parties. We've all seen surveys (Cosmo, People, 

> etc.) that report remarkably high percentages of folks who "cheat" on 

> their taxes, tell "white lies" to our friends, etc. no one would 

> receive a perfect score. Many people don't "peddle influence" when 

> they don't have any influence. Since no one would get a perfect score, 

> what's the minimum level of integrity we would permit and how would it 

> play on the front page when they cross the line. Negligent hiring?? 

> Private sector practices are often effective Because they are kept 

> private. In Florida, virtually everything is subject to open records. 

> I've had similar pr problems with lie detector results and Psych testing.

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On Jan 2, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Dennis Doverspike 

> <dennisdoverspike at gmail.com <mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com>> wrote:

>

>> Reid, (and others)

>>

>> Interesting question - because Saul Fine just had an article in PPM 

>> on Practical Guidelines for Implementing Preemployment Integrity 

>> Tests. 42(2) 281-292. He notes the same paradox - the lack of use in 

>> the public sector. He offers explanatory factors, which I will not 

>> repeat here.

>>

>> I am not an attorney.We probably need an attorney here - someone like 

>> Ines or Jeff - but without being an attorney, I think the difference 

>> relates to privacy laws and the 4th Amendement.

>>

>> Part of the issue may be that all errors are not created 

>> equal.Winfred points out an obvious flaw in the DOL argument, in that 

>> integrity tests probably result in far fewer errors than other tests. 

>>  However, the error with an integrity test is that you are saying a 

>> person is dishonest. Saying someone is dishonest in the private 

>> sector is one thing, but it can be trickier in the public sector 

>> where a person has wider privacy protections than you do with the 

>> private sector. Yes, the same argument can be made about personality 

>> tests, but can probably be made even more directly about integrity 

>> tests, even if the questions on the two tests are almost identical 

>> (there is still a difference between saying someone is not hard 

>> working enough and saying there is dishonest, regardless of the 

>> questions).  But this is just a guess. I remember from teaching 

>> forensic psychology that there have been a number of cases where 

>> public sector employees have argued for privacy rights that do not 

>> apply to the private sector, which could easily be extended to 

>> integrity tests. (Note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this 

>> argument, I am just offering the hypothesis that one of the reasons 

>> for not adopting integrity tests related to the differences in 

>> privacy protection in the public and private sector).

>>

>>

>> I believe IO solutions also has some material on integrity tests and 

>> the public sector on their website.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Winfred Arthur, Jr 

>> <w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu <mailto:w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu>> wrote:

>>

>>     Jim, i cannot help but note that my reading and understanding of

>>     the extant literature is quite at odds w/ the broad sweeping stmt

>>     that is represented by the 1st sentence of the DoL text.  and

>>     whereas there are aspects of this work that one could quibble

>>     about, for instance, as a starting point, see Table 1 and Table 2

>>     of Schmidt and Hunter (1998; this the Psych Bull "validity and

>>     utility of selection methods in personnel selection" paper).  the

>>     respective "integrity tests" criterion-related validities for

>>     "overall job performance" and "overall performance in job

>>     training programs" are .41 and .38.

>>

>>     and concerning the subsequent sentences/advice . . . would that

>>     not be the case for any predictor?  is this inherently peculiar

>>     to integrity tests?

>>

>>     - winfred

>>

>>

>>

>>     On 1/2/2014 5:27 PM, Jim Kuthy wrote:

>>>

>>>     According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s publication,

>>>     “Testing and Assessment: An Employer’s Guide to Good Practices,”

>>>     (2000)(see http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) …

>>>

>>>     “All honesty and integrity measures have appreciable prediction

>>>     errors. To minimize prediction

>>>

>>>     errors, thoroughly follow up on poor-scoring individuals with

>>>     retesting, interviews, or reference

>>>

>>>     checks. In general, integrity measures should not be used as the

>>>     sole source of information for

>>>

>>>     making employment decisions about individuals.”

>>>

>>>     I couldn’t have said it better.

>>>

>>>     Jim

>>>

>>>     	

>>>

>>>     *Jim Kuthy, Ph.D.*

>>>

>>>     /Principal Consultant/ | Biddle Consulting Group, Inc.

>>>     193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 270 | Folsom, CA 95630

>>>     (916) 294-4250 ext. 239

>>>     <tel:%28916%29%20294-4250%20ext.%C2%A0239> | Fax: (916) 294-4255

>>>     <tel:%28916%29%20294-4255>

>>>     www.biddle.com <http://www.biddle.com> | www.criticall911.com

>>>     <http://www.criticall911.com> | www.opac.com

>>>     <http://www.opac.com> | www.affirmativeaction.com

>>>     <http://www.affirmativeaction.com>

>>>

>>>     	

>>>

>>>     *From:*Reid Klion [mailto:RKlion at panpowered.com]

>>>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:38 PM

>>>     *To:* ipac-list at ipacweb.org <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>

>>>     *Subject:* [IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector

>>>

>>>     Happy 2014 to all!

>>>

>>>     I am curious about the group’s thoughts about a question that

>>>     was recently posed by a colleague regarding the use of integrity

>>>     tests in the public sector. Integrity tests are used fairly

>>>     broadly in the private sector for individuals applying for

>>>     “positions of trust.” However, neither of us were aware of their

>>>     usage in the public sector (setting aside the use of

>>>     psychological assessments for the selection of public safety

>>>     officers which uses a different set of assessments much broader

>>>     in scope ).  Anyone have any thoughts or anecdata? Thanks-

>>>

>>>     Reid

>>>

>>>     Reid E. Klion, Ph.D.

>>>

>>>     Chief Science Officer

>>>

>>>     */pan/**- *Performance Assessment Network, Inc.

>>>

>>>     11590 North Meridian St.

>>>

>>>     Suite 200

>>>

>>>     Carmel, IN 46032 USA

>>>

>>>     317.814.8808 <tel:317.814.8808>  Office

>>>

>>>     317.908.4312 <tel:317.908.4312> Mobile

>>>

>>>     317.814.8888 <tel:317.814.8888> Fax

>>>

>>>     rklion at panpowered.com <mailto:rklion at panpowered.com>

>>>

>>>     www.panpowered.com <http://www.panpowered.com/>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>     _______________________________________________________

>>>     IPAC-List

>>>     IPAC-List at ipacweb.org  <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

>>>     http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>>

>>

>>     _______________________________________________________

>>     IPAC-List

>>     IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

>>     http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> -- 

>> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP

>> Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)

>> Independent Consultant

>> Professor of Psychology, University of Akron

>> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com <mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com>

>>

>> The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it 

>> is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work 

>> product for the sole use of the intended recipient. No 

>> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errant 

>> transmission. If you receive this message in error, please destroy 

>> all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader of this message 

>> is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is 

>> strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic 

>> transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your 

>> system and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be 

>> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be 

>> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, 

>> or contain viruses.

>>

>> _______________________________________________________

>> IPAC-List

>> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

>> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140102/9aaf4232/attachment-0001.html