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

[Lance Seberhagen]

Hi Dennis-- Here is a reference for you.  Comment?

Ones & Viswesvaran (2001).  Integrity tests and other criterion-focused 
occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. 
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 31-39.

Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

Seberhagen & Associates

9021 Trailridge Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703-790-0796

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



On 1/4/2014 3:04 PM, Dennis Doverspike wrote:

> Lance.  Could you provide references to the studies where integrity 

> testing predicts violence. Thanks

>

> Sent from my iPhone

>

> On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Lance Seberhagen <sebe at erols.com 

> <mailto:sebe at erols.com>> wrote:

>

>> Integrity tests and other measures of conscientiousness have 

>> demonstrated validity to predict theft, drug abuse, violence, and 

>> other CWB, with relatively low adverse impact. Thus, integrity tests 

>> and other measures of conscientiousness provide an alternative 

>> selection procedure for criminal history records and background 

>> checks (devices with questionable validityand high adverse impact), 

>> which are commonly used by federal, state, and local government agencies.

>>

>> I know of at least one state agency that uses apublished integrity 

>> test as part of the selection process for Toll Collectors.

>>

>> Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

>>

>> Seberhagen & Associates

>>

>> 9021 Trailridge Court

>>

>> Vienna, VA 22182

>>

>> 703-790-0796

>>

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

>>

>>

>>

>> On 1/4/2014 1:30 PM, Harry Brull (OCE) wrote:

>>>

>>> Without beating a dead horse – PDI’s Employment Inventory (EI) is a 

>>> measure of conscientious work behaviors – as such, it predicts not 

>>> only counter-productive behaviors – but such behaviors as 

>>> productivity, attendance, adhering to safety rules (reducing 

>>> workers’ comp claims), etc.

>>>

>>> The emphasis is on “screening in” not screening out. I’ve used it in 

>>> the public sector for bus drivers, laborers, and firefighters.

>>>

>>> Harry Brull

>>>

>>> The last I looked, it had been administered to over 30 million 

>>> applicants, with some public sector

>>>

>>> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

>>>

>>> *Harry Brull, Senior Vice President*

>>>

>>> *PDI Ninth House, a Korn/Ferry Company*

>>>

>>> 8157 Buck Run

>>>

>>> Salida, CO 81201

>>>

>>> USA

>>>

>>> 1.612.414.8998 direct

>>>

>>> harry.brull at pdinh.com__

>>>

>>> *www.pdinh.com <http://www.pdinh.com/>*

>>>

>>> **

>>>

>>> **

>>>

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

>>>

>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/pdi?trk=fc_badge%22%3e%3cimg><http://twitter.com/><http://www.facebook.com/PDINinthHouse><http://www.weibo.com/pdininthhouse><http://www.youtube.com/user/PDINinthHouse>

>>>

>>> *From:*ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org 

>>> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] *On Behalf Of *Saul Fine

>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 04, 2014 11:10 AM

>>> *To:* Mark Hammer; ipac-list at ipacweb.org

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

>>> sector

>>>

>>> 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 <mailto:Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca>

>>>

>>> *Sent:*Friday, January 03, 2014 11:25 PM

>>>

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

>>

>> _______________________________________________________

>> 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/20140104/5a3c5255/attachment.html