Employment testing online, offline, and over the phone: Implications for e-assessment

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThis research investigated faking across test administration modes in an employment testing scenario. For the first time, phone administration was included. Participants (N = 91) were randomly allocated to testing mode (telephone, Internet, or pen-and-paper). Participants completed a personality measure under standard instructions and then under instructions to fake as an ideal police applicant. No significant difference in any faked personality domains as a function of administration mode was found. Effect sizes indicated that the influence of administration mode was small. Limitations and future directions are considered. Overall, results indicate that if an individual intends to fake on a self-report test in a vocational assessment scenario, the electronic administration mode in which the test is delivered may be unimportant. © 2016 Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Pruebas de selección on-line, off-line y telefónicas: implicaciones para la evaluación electrónicaPalabras clave: Evaluación por ordenador Pruebas por Internet Pruebas telefónicas Equivalencia Pruebas profesionales Falseamiento Evaluación electrónica r e s u m e n Este trabajo investiga el falseamiento en los diferentes modos de aplicación de tests en el contexto de las pruebas para conseguir empleo. Por primera vez se incluyó la aplicación telefónica. Se distribuyó a los participantes (N = 91) aleatoriamente en las modalidades de prueba (telefónica, Internet o papel y lápiz). Los sujetos realizaron una prueba de personalidad con instrucciones estándar y después con instrucciones de que falsearan la prueba como si fuesen aspirantes ideales a la policía. No resultaron diferencias significativas en ninguno de los dominios de personalidad en función del modo de administración. La magnitud del efecto indicaba que la influencia del modo de aplicación era escasa. Se abordan las limitaciones y directrices con vistas al futuro. En general, los resultados indican que si una persona trata de falsear una prueba de autoinforme en el contexto de la evaluación profesional el modo de administración electrónica de la prueba puede carecer de importancia.

Moderator effects of job complexity on the validity of forced-choice personality inventories for predicting job performance

“…For example, Murphy and Dzieweczynski (2005) posited that the theories linking personality constructs and job performance were often vague and unconvincing, that little was known about how to match personality dimensions and occupations, and that some of the most valid personality-related measures (e.g., integrity tests) included poorly defined constructs. On the other hand, researchers suggested that the validity of personality measures was small and that the measures based on self-reports can be faked, independently of the administration mode (Grieve & Hayes, 2016;Morgeson et al, 2007aMorgeson et al, , 2007bSalgado, 2016).…”

The Five-Factor model and job performance in low complexity jobs: A quantitative synthesis

“…Despite the empirical evidence of the validity of the FFM, several researchers have criticized personality variables on the basis that they can be affected by faking when the individual is motivated to do it, for instance, in personnel selection processes (Grieve & Hayes, 2016;Morgeson et al, 2007;Salgado, 2016).…”

Structured behavioral and conventional interviews: Differences and biases in interviewer ratings

“…With regard to future research, the significant growth in the use of new information technologies (IT) in the selection and assessment processes (e.g., e-recruitment, phone-based interviews, online interviews) suggests that new studies should be conducted to verify the way in which the findings of the present research can be transported to new assessment methods (Aguado, Rico, Rubio, & Fernández, 2016;Bruk-Lee et al, 2016;García-Izquierdo, Ramos-Villagrasa, & Castaño, 2015;Schinkel, van Vianen, & Ryan, 2016). This is especially relevant in the case of the interview, given that more and more companies are conducting online interviews, in which the interviewer and the interviewee communicate only through a computer and in which there is no real interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee (Grieve & Hayes, 2016;Silvester & Anderson, 2003).…”