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

[Winfred Arthur, Jr.]

Pat, my reading of the integrity literature is that it has dealt w/ most 
of the issues raised in your 2nd paragraph.  and your query as to 
whether there aren't other approaches to assessing these constructs, is 
a fair one.  i think SJTs, for instance, can be readily designed to 
measure these constructs.

finally, i thought you might find this interesting.  although i would 
not place much stock in them b/c of the absence of rsch to support their 
validity, there are some claims out there about the use of fmri to 
measure honesty/lying.

- winfred


On 1/7/2014 10:34 AM, Patrick McCoy wrote:

> Interesting discussion.

> I think most of us would agree that conscientiousness, honesty, 

> integrity, and a host of similar constructs are clearly important in 

> most employment contexts, whether in the private or public sector.

> For me, the question is whether the best we can do is to rely on 

> self-report type tools that rely on the persons's integrity, 

> honesty,etc.  People who have never cheated at something, at some 

> time, are rather rare in my humble opinion. Same goes for people who 

> have never lied,etc.

> Should an honest respondent be penalized for indicating on an 

> instrument they cheated at some point in time, perhaps in their 

> childhood? If the answer is no, one probably needs to be careful that 

> the assessment tool to be used does not, in fact, penalize such an 

> individual.  If a forced-choice approach is used to help reduce the 

> likelihood that the respondent will just pick the desirable option, I 

> guess we must ask ourselves does the approach really work.  It may 

> not, especially in contexts where the approach may need to be 

> disclosed in a recourse situation.

> Are there other approaches to assessing the construct(s) that might 

> be expected, a priori, to work better?

> Hope you had a great holiday season!

> Pat McCoy

> in Ottawa, Canada

> >>> "Mark Hammer" <Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca> 2014/01/05 5:02 PM >>>

> As one can see below, Reid's original question was not with respect to 

> the validity of integrity tests /*in general*/ - I think we can all 

> envision contexts where they would be the perfect supplement to other 

> validtests, given the nature of the position - but the specific use of 

> such tests in the public sector.

>

> "Public sector" includes two general uses: for external recruitment 

> _into_ the PS, and for competitions/promotions _within_ the PS.  As I 

> commented earlier, without articulating that I was thinking in terms 

> of internal competitions, any tests used, no matter what their 

> validity might be, will often have results available publicly, whether 

> posted automatically (to show who made the short list), or upon 

> request (e.g., an appeal that inquires into "why I didn't make the cut 

> and those guys did").  And under those conditions, Harry's "smoove 

> move" of using a term/construct that does not brand a person quite so 

> negatively, is on the money, as far as I'm concerned.  Of course, once 

> one is within any public-sector organization, the assumption is that 

> you pass muster, with respect to integrity, if you are applying for a 

> promotion or other position, and have not been in trouble as of yet; 

> your "good egg" credit subs for a test.

>

> I don't know about everybody else's public sector context, but in ours 

> there is a security check, and working is contingent on obtaining that 

> security clearance.  If you come from outside, they do a check, and if 

> you're coming from inside and already have that security level, you 

> get credit for that.  That clearance may be relatively basic for a 

> great many positions, but it is there.  What sort of distinguishes 

> private sector and public sector employers is that many private-sector 

> employers may have the resources to spring for integrity testing, but 

> not have either the resources or legal authority to engage in the sort 

> of thorough security check that public-sector employers can.  My 

> employers can have the RCMP run a check on you.  I don't know what 

> Krogers or Target has the legal clout to do.

>

> So, for me, the question that arises is how much any integrity testing 

> is largely reduncant with the one-two-punch of a security check and a 

> structured reference check.  I will grant you that use of even /both/ 

> of these is not necessarily exactly the same as either testing for 

> integrity or conscientiousness.  But I suspect that, as Reid notes, 

> unless we are looking specifically at public safety officers, or any 

> other postions of trust where a security check is considered to not 

> capture the entire construct space of interest, you won't see 

> integrity tests used all that often.

>

> Of course, a member of the public would likely look at the nature of 

> employment in each sector - "at will" in the private, and ultra-secure 

> in the public - and scrunch their face up, muttering "Wait, you're 

> going to hire him/her for conceivably *30 years,* and you're not even 

> going to test for that, yet that /other/ employer is going to put a 

> checkout cashier through those hoops, even though they could fire them 

> at a moment's notice?".  That individual is looking at it from the 

> low/high stakes angle, where at-will employment implies the 

> ethical/integrity bar can be a little lower, since mistakes can be 

> corrected by termination.

>

> Mark

>

> >>> Reid Klion 01/02/14 5:44 PM >>>

>

> 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

>

>

>

> >

> 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.

>

> >

> 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/20140107/f74e128b/attachment.html