The deterrent value of drug and integrity testing

Rosse, Joseph G.; Miller, Janice L.; Ringer, Richard C.

doi:10.1007/bf02251782

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the concern with personality testing arises because some organizations utilize clinical rather than employment oriented inventories. In contrast, job applicants respond more positively to a vocational interest inventory (Rosse et al, 1996a). The big 5 measures of personality consisting of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience are particularly promising for selection purposes.…”

Section: Hiring For Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 97%

Achieving Ethics and Fairness in Hiring: Going Beyond the Law

Alder

Gilbert

2006

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and more recent Federal legislation, managers, regulators, and attorneys have been busy in sorting out the legal meaning of fairness in employment. While ethical managers must follow the law in their hiring practices, they cannot be satisfied with legal compliance. In this article, we first briefly summarize what the law requires in terms of fair hiring practices. We subsequently rely on multiple perspectives to explore the ethical meaning of fairness in hiring. Ethical fairness underlies the law and regulations in this area, but goes beyond them as well. We conclude by demonstrating that ethical hiring practices enable managers to make better hiring decisions. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006Ethics, Fairness, Personnel Law, Staffing,

show abstract

Section: Hiring For Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 97%

Achieving Ethics and Fairness in Hiring: Going Beyond the Law

Alder

Gilbert

2006

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of new primary validity studies have been reported since the Sackett and Wanek (1996) review (Borofsky, 2000; Boye & Wasserman, 1996; Hein, Kramer, & Van Hein, 2003; Lanyon & Goodstein, 2004; Mastrangelo & Jolton, 2001; Nicol & Paunonen, 2001; Rosse, Miller, & Ringer, 1996). Findings were generally supportive, though this is not surprising given the wealth of predictive validity evidence demonstrated by cumulative meta‐analytic investigations (Ones et al, 1993).…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A selection method not included in Hausknecht et al was drug testing. Two papers by Rosse and colleagues (Rosse et al, 1996; Rosse, Ringer, & Miller, 1996) compared reactions to integrity testing and drug testing. These authors suggested that integrity tests should be perceived more positively by applicants than urinalysis because they are less invasive and do not presume guilt.…”

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Recent Developments in Integrity Test Research

BERRY

Sackett

Wiemann

2007

Personnel Psychology

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sizable body of new literature on integrity tests has appeared since the last review of this literature by Sackett and Wanek (1996). Understanding of the constructs underlying integrity tests continues to grow, aided by new work at the item level. Validation work against a growing variety of criteria continues to be carried out. Work on documenting fakability and coachability continues, as do efforts to increase resistance to faking. New test types continue to be developed. Examination of subgroup differences continues, both at the test and facet level. Research addressing applicant reactions and cross‐cultural issues is also reviewed.

show abstract

“…From an applied standpoint, however, employers may be relatively unconcerned about the reactions of those they do not wish to hire. They may even appreciate a selection procedure's deterrent effect, for example if requiring urinalysis discourages drug users from even applying (Rosse, Miller, & Ringer, 1996). But the clear majority of participants in this study did not expect their credit records to be obstacles to employment, yet they still felt credit checks to be unfair.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Understanding Applicant Reactions to Credit Checks: Uncertainty, information effects and individual differences

Kuhn

Nielsen

2008

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Credit checks are an increasingly common selection procedure for American jobs, and they are distinct in a number of ways from the selection tests typically studied by researchers. With a credit check, applicants do not actually take a test or answer questions, and most will be uncertain about what information a credit report contains, why one is being requested, and how it will be evaluated. In two experiments we assess the effects of explanations and individual differences. Experiment 1 used a sample of 408 undergraduate business students to examine reaction dimensions relevant to credit checks, and found perceptions to be mainly negative. The type of explanation read, however, interacted with perceived credit report impact to influence reactions. Results of Experiment 2, with a sample of students from a more non-traditional population, were similar, but age was associated with greater skepticism of credit report accuracy. Privacy perceptions were the strongest predictor of intention to withdraw from the selection process.

show abstract

The deterrent value of drug and integrity testing

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

Achieving Ethics and Fairness in Hiring: Going Beyond the Law

Achieving Ethics and Fairness in Hiring: Going Beyond the Law

A Review of Recent Developments in Integrity Test Research

Understanding Applicant Reactions to Credit Checks: Uncertainty, information effects and individual differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About