Workplace integrity testing is a psychological assessment used in the pre-employment screening process. This non-cognitive measure evaluates a job candidate’s reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty. Companies use these tests to gain insight into a prospective employee’s disposition and predict their future behavior. By assessing a candidate’s attitudes and past actions, employers aim to mitigate the financial and organizational risks associated with hiring individuals who may engage in misconduct.
Defining Workplace Integrity Testing
Workplace integrity testing involves psychological questionnaires or structured assessment tools designed to measure an applicant’s likelihood of engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). These assessments go beyond general personality inventories, focusing narrowly on traits associated with honesty and adherence to company rules. The tests operate on the assumption that an individual’s attitudes regarding integrity will translate into their actual behavior on the job. Integrity tests tap into factors like conscientiousness, dependability, and emotional stability, which are known to correlate strongly with trustworthy behavior and productive performance.
Behaviors Integrity Tests Are Designed to Predict
The primary purpose of integrity tests is to identify individuals who have a high potential for engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). These behaviors are defined as any intentional actions by an employee that are contrary to the organization’s legitimate interests. Common behaviors predicted include employee theft (cash, time, or unauthorized use of property), excessive absenteeism, frequent tardiness, and non-compliance with company policies and safety procedures. Integrity tests also forecast a propensity for behaviors such as workplace violence, sabotage, falsifying records, and substance abuse while on the job.
The Two Major Types of Integrity Assessments
Integrity assessments are generally categorized into two distinct formats that utilize different questioning strategies to evaluate a candidate’s honesty. These two types are overt and personality-based. While both types have been shown to be effective in predicting undesirable workplace behaviors, they differ significantly in their transparency and question style.
Overt Integrity Tests
Overt integrity tests, sometimes called clear-purpose tests, are direct in their approach and make no attempt to disguise the purpose of the assessment. These tests typically consist of two sections: one inquiring about a candidate’s past dishonest behavior and another about their attitudes toward such behavior. Questions directly ask about an applicant’s own involvement in wrongdoing, such as whether they have ever stolen from an employer or used illicit drugs. The transparency of the questions means the desired answer is often obvious, which introduces the possibility of a candidate attempting to “fake good.”
Personality-Based or Veiled Integrity Tests
Personality-based integrity tests, also referred to as covert or veiled-purpose tests, are designed to be more subtle by assessing broader personality traits that are correlated with honest behavior. These assessments look less like an honesty quiz and more like a standard personality inventory, often using questions that seem unrelated to theft or misconduct. They measure composite personality dimensions such as conscientiousness, dependability, reliability, and emotional adjustment. Because the link between the question and the integrity trait being measured is less clear, these veiled tests are considered more difficult for applicants to manipulate or fake.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The use of integrity tests in the workplace is governed by specific federal regulations intended to prevent discriminatory hiring practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires that any employment test, including integrity assessments, must not have a disparate impact on protected groups based on race, gender, or national origin. If a test does show a disproportionate negative impact, the employer must be able to prove the test is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Concerns also arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries or conducting medical exams before a conditional job offer. Integrity tests must be carefully constructed to ensure their questions do not inadvertently elicit information about a disability or medical diagnosis. Beyond legal compliance, ethical concerns center on privacy and the potential for false positives, where an honest person may be incorrectly flagged as a risk.
The Effectiveness and Limitations of Integrity Testing
Research on integrity testing consistently demonstrates its utility as a predictor of both positive and negative workplace outcomes. High scores on these tests correlate with improved overall job performance and a reduction in counterproductive work behavior. Meta-analyses have shown that integrity tests have substantial validity in predicting organizationally disruptive behaviors such as theft, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. Combining an integrity test with a cognitive ability test provides a highly effective means of predicting future job performance, exceeding the predictive power of either test alone. Despite their effectiveness, integrity tests have notable limitations, primarily concerning the applicant’s ability to manipulate their responses and the risk of false positives.
Practical Tips for Taking an Integrity Test
Candidates should approach an integrity test with a focus on consistency and straightforward honesty, recognizing that many tests include built-in validity scales to detect attempts at deception. The assessments often present similar questions phrased differently throughout the test to check for internal consistency. It is helpful to read all instructions carefully and understand the response scale before beginning the assessment. A common pitfall is overthinking the questions or trying to guess the “perfect” moral answer, which can lead to a pattern of inconsistent responses. Instead of trying to present an impossibly flawless image, a candidate should answer truthfully and consistently with their own values.