Response distortion (RD), or faking, among job applicants completing personality inventories has been a concern for selection specialists. In a field study using the NEO Personality Inventory, Revised, the authors show that RD is significantly greater among job applicants than among job incumbents, that there are significant individual differences in RD, and that RD among job applicants can have a significant effect on who is hired. These results are discussed in the context of recent studies suggesting that RD has little effect on the predictive validity of personality inventories. The authors conclude that future research, rather than focusing on predictive validity, should focus instead on the effect of RD on construct validity and hiring decisions. has on the validity, utility, and fairness of preemployment personality assessments. The purpose of this article is to explore the extent of response distortion on personality inventory scores in an actual applicant-testing environment and its potential effect on which applicants get hired.

Eighty job applicants were screened through 1 of 3 job-selection conditions depending on the job for which they were applying: interviews only; interviews plus a personality inventory (the NEO Personality Inventory); or interviews, personality inventory, and cognitive ability testing. Applicants' reactions were generally favorable in all conditions but were significantly less positive in the interview plus personality test condition. The condition of a battery of both personality and ability tests (in addition to the interview) was perceived as positively as the no-test control condition. These results suggest that personality inventories can be included in employee-selection procedures without creating adverse reactions among job applicants as long as they are used in conjunction with ability tests.

ABSTRACt. Paper-and-pencil inventories have been suggested as a less invasive alternative to urinalysis drug testing. Using 702 students in three experiments, an overt integrity test, a personality inventory, an interest inventory and a no-testing control condition were compared. Subjects reacted most positively when no testing was required. When drug testing was required, subjects were most satisfied with either overt tests or urinalysis, and least satisfied with the personality inventory. Attempts to increase the acceptability of personality testing by providing explanations and rationale had no effect on subjects' attitudes.For most people, the terms ~drug testing ~ and ~inalysis" are essentially synonymous, at least in employment contexts. Most of the literature concerning drug testing has centered on various biochemical methods designed to detect the presence of drug metabolites in an individual's urine. Yet this is cert~in|y not the only approach being used to screen out employees who are likely to use drugs on the job. An alternafive approach consists of the use of paper-and-pencil inventories cornWe wish to express our appreciation to Andrew Co]felt for his assistance in research design and data collection, and to Kevin Murphy and Terry Stecher for their comments on previous draits of this paper.

ABSTRACt. Numerous studies have shown that job applicants may react negatively to drug, integrity, and personality testing and that these negative reactions can affect their attitudes and job search behavior. However, it is not clear if these negative reactions are equally strong among users and non-users of drugs. Using a sample of 509 subjects responding to a hypothetical employer, results showed that drug users had more negative reactions than non-users to urinalysis, overt integrity tests and personality inventories. Drug users responded equally negatively to all forms of testing, while non-users were especially negative towards personality tests.

No abstract