I like the idea of using conditional reasoning tests as an alternative to common integrity tests. What are applicant perceptions of these conditional reasoning tests in comparison to personality based or more overt measures? What influence might the forced choice responses to these items have on the relatively low validity of these tests?
With such a low criterion-validity value, is this test still valuable to the selection field? How does this compare to the integrity test (overt & covert)? Is this field reluctant to use anything even slightly valuable to the selection process? I feel that more valid measures should be considered or created/fixed.
Discussing the criterion-related validity of the CRI-A, the authors cite that James et al. (2005) “argued that withdrawal behaviors are manifestations of aggression, other researchers have made a case for withdrawal behaviors being a function of less aggressive antecedents such as boredom or being upset…” Doesn’t it seem reasonable that either could be true depending on the individual?
I found this conditional reasoning approach really interesting because of its capability of preventing faking. However, as described by the authors, it is an approach that is quite time consuming. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the past that faking is really not that serious of an issue. Do you think this approach is actually worth the extra time?
This is a good example of the development of new tests that are alternatives to self-report and can supplement other selection tools. I'm intrigued by your question, Shay, and realize that these questions themselves (developed for the CRT-A) must be so carefully developed and based on extensive research themselves linking dispositional tendencies with justification mechanisms. Challenging, but creative stuff.
I like the idea of using conditional reasoning tests as an alternative to common integrity tests. What are applicant perceptions of these conditional reasoning tests in comparison to personality based or more overt measures? What influence might the forced choice responses to these items have on the relatively low validity of these tests?
ReplyDeleteWith such a low criterion-validity value, is this test still valuable to the selection field? How does this compare to the integrity test (overt & covert)? Is this field reluctant to use anything even slightly valuable to the selection process? I feel that more valid measures should be considered or created/fixed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat types of personality characteristics might make it more difficult for organizations to detect an individual's tendency to do CWB?
ReplyDeleteWhen might a measure such as CRT-A be used? And for what jobs?
ReplyDeleteDiscussing the criterion-related validity of the CRI-A, the authors cite that James et al. (2005) “argued that withdrawal behaviors are manifestations of aggression, other researchers have made a case for withdrawal behaviors being a function of less aggressive antecedents such as boredom or being upset…” Doesn’t it seem reasonable that either could be true depending on the individual?
ReplyDeleteI found this conditional reasoning approach really interesting because of its capability of preventing faking. However, as described by the authors, it is an approach that is quite time consuming. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the past that faking is really not that serious of an issue. Do you think this approach is actually worth the extra time?
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of the development of new tests that are alternatives to self-report and can supplement other selection tools.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by your question, Shay, and realize that these questions themselves (developed for the CRT-A) must be so carefully developed and based on extensive research themselves linking dispositional tendencies with justification mechanisms. Challenging, but creative stuff.