The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis.

Chad H. Van Iddekinge · Philip L. Roth · Patrick H. Raymark · Heather N. Odle‐Dusseau

211 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Psychological Testing and Assessment Employer Branding and e-HRM

Abstract

Integrity tests have become a prominent predictor within the selection literature over the past few decades. However, some researchers have expressed concerns about the criterion-related validity evidence for such tests because of a perceived lack of methodological rigor within this literature, as well as a heavy reliance on unpublished data from test publishers. In response to these concerns, we meta-analyzed 104 studies (representing 134 independent samples), which were authored by a similar proportion of test publishers and non-publishers, whose conduct was consistent with professional standards for test validation, and whose results were relevant to the validity of integrity-specific scales for predicting individual work behavior. Overall mean observed validity estimates and validity estimates corrected for unreliability in the criterion (respectively) were .12 and .15 for job performance, .13 and .16 for training performance, .26 and .32 for counterproductive work behavior, and .07 and .09 for turnover. Although data on restriction of range were sparse, illustrative corrections for indirect range restriction did increase validities slightly (e.g., from .15 to .18 for job performance). Several variables appeared to moderate relations between integrity tests and the criteria. For example, corrected validities for job performance criteria were larger when based on studies authored by integrity test publishers (.27) than when based on studies from non-publishers (.12). In addition, corrected validities for counterproductive work behavior criteria were larger when based on self-reports (.42) than when based on other-reports (.11) or employee records (.15).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 211 citations exist upstream.

References

1991The theory of planned behavior 2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1977Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.1988Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis 1979The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.2015Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings 1998The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.2000A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium

Cited by

2017Solving the Supreme Problem: 100 years of selection and recruitment at the Journal of Applied Psychology.2020The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology 2013Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective Performance at Work 2019The importance of being humble: A meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty-humility and job performance.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.