Are organizations more likely to select overt or covert measures of integrity? Given that the authors suggest that faking is more of an issue for overt measures, might applicants who suspect covert measures are being used to assess integrity eventually start to fake more on these covert measures?
Would telling applicants the consequences of faking/lying on the over test come to equal the overt personality test results? The authors mentioned that warning applicants decreased acts of distortion on the overt test. Also, what is the view (e.g., procedural justice) of using the overt personality-based test?
I think this does a good job to show that it can be easy to fake integrity tests especially when certain measures are utilized. Isn’t it also the case that people might also be measured as a certain type of integrity on paper, but when they are put in the situation where they must show integrity, they may not behave how they would think? There is a difference between knowing what you ought to do and actually doing it.
I think it’s ironic that integrity tests are so susceptible to faking. I think that the type of people who engage in counterproductive work behavior, are probably pretty manipulative and can therefore successfully fake on these types of tests. What are some other types of tests that might be useful in catching these types of people?
I would like to understand the difference between how overt and covert tests are constructed. I think a helpful conclusion of this meta-analysis is that orgs need to be cautious in interpreting results of integrity tests.
Are organizations more likely to select overt or covert measures of integrity? Given that the authors suggest that faking is more of an issue for overt measures, might applicants who suspect covert measures are being used to assess integrity eventually start to fake more on these covert measures?
ReplyDeleteWould telling applicants the consequences of faking/lying on the over test come to equal the overt personality test results? The authors mentioned that warning applicants decreased acts of distortion on the overt test. Also, what is the view (e.g., procedural justice) of using the overt personality-based test?
ReplyDeleteWhat individual difference factors might increase or decrease people tendency to fake on integrity tests?
ReplyDeleteI think this does a good job to show that it can be easy to fake integrity tests especially when certain measures are utilized. Isn’t it also the case that people might also be measured as a certain type of integrity on paper, but when they are put in the situation where they must show integrity, they may not behave how they would think? There is a difference between knowing what you ought to do and actually doing it.
ReplyDeleteIf integrity tests can be faked, what other measures or indicators of an applicant’s integrity might an organization utilize?
ReplyDeleteI think it’s ironic that integrity tests are so susceptible to faking. I think that the type of people who engage in counterproductive work behavior, are probably pretty manipulative and can therefore successfully fake on these types of tests. What are some other types of tests that might be useful in catching these types of people?
ReplyDeleteI would like to understand the difference between how overt and covert tests are constructed. I think a helpful conclusion of this meta-analysis is that orgs need to be cautious in interpreting results of integrity tests.
ReplyDelete