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

[Saul Fine]

That’s a very good point, Dennis. Indeed, when it is more difficult to fire someone for CWBs (particularly for minor misbehaviors), screening applicants in advance for risk potential towards such behaviors becomes all the more important. With that, I would say that organizations considering to use integrity tests are often more concerned about serious/illegal CWBs, which are going to be dismissible offenses in any work setting.
Saul.

From: Dennis Doverspike 
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 7:18 PM
To: Saul Fine 
Cc: Mark Hammer ; IPAC-List 
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] : Use of integrity assessments in public sector

But isnt that the question Saul, while the Private sector can clearly say - we will fire someone for CWBs - it becomes more questionable in the Public sector. Thus, I think the question is one, for the public sector not the private sector, of what do we really mean when we say CWBs and are CWBs a legitimate criterion in the public sector. 

For example, what if the CWB being predicted is whistleblowing?

Dennis



On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Saul Fine <saulfine at zahav.net.il> wrote:

  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


  _______________________________________________________
  IPAC-List
  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

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140104/a96fa433/attachment-0001.htm