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

[Saul Fine]

Another thing to consider is the alternatives. If an organization is interested in reducing CWB, integrity tests are one of the most effective and least expensive selection tools for doing so. Regarding validity, a lively discussion was published in JAP (2012, 97/3), based on an updated meta-analysis by Van Iddekinge et al. While the prediction of overall job performance was brought into question, there seems to be a consensus opinion regarding integrity tests’  ability to predict CWB.
Saul.

From: Mark Hammer 
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:25 PM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org 
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] : Use of integrity assessments in public sector

Well that's just it, isn't it?  When the outcomes, and especially the basis, of selection decisions can be public, the basis for non-selection cannot appear to be either punitive or derogatory, or else one will be met with a fair degree (in every sense of the word "fair") of opposition, particularly when the selection process is internal to the organization,

And if calling it something else that doesn't sting quite so much and is the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down, so be it.

While I've got you all here, Happy New Year, eh?

Mark


>>> <RPClare at aol.com> 2014/01/03 12:18 AM >>>


excellent post making it a whole different perspective...more like a Py test than "integrity.

In a message dated 1/2/2014 11:16:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Harry.Brull at KornFerry.com writes:
  Using the Employment incentory (EI), I have conducted validity studies for bus drivers (using criteria such as chargeable/non-chargeable accidents, workers’ comp claims, absenteeism, etc. with excellent results. A similar study for nursing assistants also produced high validities.

  I have also used measures of conscientiousness ( a more accurate nomenclature than integrity tests) for a relatively wide group of public sector positions including laborers and fire fighters.


  Labelling people as “failing an integrity test” is problematic. Given conscientiousness’s status as a big 5 personality characteristic – I prefer “demonstrating higher levels of conscientiousness”.


  Harry Brull





> 

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any copies. 

> 

Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et supprimer le courriel et les copies. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
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/20140104/a3e02ca8/attachment.html