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

[keith.poole at phoenix.gov]

For what it's worth, we started using an overt integrity test in about the 
mid 1990's. It's the Vangent (formerly Pearson) PSI-S, with the S meaning 
extra items relating to safety attitudes.  It costs us about $22 per 
assessment.  This assessment focuses on counterproductive work behaviors 
and integrity, with scales for employee/customer relations, honesty, drug 
avoidance, safety, etc.  It's an option for departments to use this, and 
it appears it was used to some success for entry level positions, mostly 
blue collar.  Historically about 60% pass and overall little to no adverse 
impact.  We had a blanket policy that this was only to be used for 
external applicants, no existing employees had to take or pass it.

In recent years we've basically had all but maybe one department decide to 
discontinue using the PSI.  There were a variety of reasons including:
- Starting in the 2000's we instituted mandatory background checking 
through an external vendor, including criminal checks, for both internal 
(promotions) and external applicants.  Some departments thought the PSI 
was too redundant.
- We initially did mandatory drug and alcohol testing for all new hires 
but have since pared this back to just safety-sensitive positions.
- Going back to mid-2000's up until the recession, some departments had a 
very difficult time filling even basic entry level positions and it didn't 
seem that the PSI added enough value to lose 40% of the applicants.
- Generally difficult to show success to departments without doing more 
in-depth research.  Some departments had decided to hire some applicants 
who "failed" the PSI based on other valid info (reference checks, contract 
employees etc), and even on this anecdotal level it was hard to see a 
pattern.  Another issue is that most departments wanted to limit costs and 
only administer the PSI at the time of first or even second interview.  We 
had a hard time explaining to departments that it's really not a "sniper" 
type assessment tool that can identify on a person-by-person basis at the 
end of the selection process whether they had integrity.

In any case, it may see a resurgence at some point in our organization, 
but the one department that is still using the PSI is looking at other 
options or dropping altogether.

Keith Poole
Human Resources Supervisor
City of Phoenix HR Department
135 N 2nd Ave
Phoenix, AZ  85003
Phone: (602) 262-7140
Fax: (602) 495-5498
Email:  keith.poole at phoenix.gov



From:   Reid Klion <RKlion at panpowered.com>
To:     "ipac-list at ipacweb.org" <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>, 
Date:   01/02/2014 03:44 PM
Subject:        [IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector
Sent by:        ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org



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  Office
317.908.4312  Mobile
317.814.8888  Fax
rklion at panpowered.com
www.panpowered.com
 _______________________________________________________
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/20140107/6fafc381/attachment.htm