© 2013 Cengage Learning References and Testing. © 2013 Cengage Learning Why Check References? Check for resume fraud Find new information about the applicant

© 2013 Cengage Learning

References and Testing


Why Check References?

• Check for resume fraud• Find new information about the applicant• Check for potential discipline problems• Predict future performance


Checking for Resume Fraud• Why Check?

– 1/3 resumes contain inaccurate info

– over 500,000 people have bonus degrees

• Verifying Information– truth

– error

– embellishment

– fabrication

• Obtaining Missing information– unintentional omission

– strategic omission

– deceptive omission

• Alternative methods– bogus application items

– social security reports

– hire professional reference checkers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09DU_cXkR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u7WBlSIXWI


Getting Info Can Be Difficult

Type of Information % Asking % Releasing

Employment dates 97 98

Eligible for re-hire 64 42

Salary history 66 41

Reason for leaving 94 19

Performance 86 18

Employability 16

Work habits 13

People skills 11


Finding New Information About the Applicant

• Types of Information– personality

– interpersonal style

– background

– work habits

• Problems– references seldom agree

– people act in different ways in different situations

• Alternative Measures– psychological tests

– letters of recommendation

– biodata

– resumes

– interviews


Checking for Potential Discipline Problems

• Criminal Records• Previous employers• Motor vehicle records• Military records• Credit reports• Colleges and universities• Neighbors and friends


Criminal Records

• Obtained from local and state agencies• Check with each jurisdiction• Only convictions can be used (EEOC Decision No. 72-

1460)– “Reasonable amount of time” between release and

decision to hire– In using convictions, employer must consider

• Nature and gravity of offense• Amount of time that has passed since the conviction and/or

completion of the sentence• The nature of the job held or being sought


Credit Checks• Purpose

– Predict motivation to steal

– Determine character of applicant

• Fair Credit Reporting Act– Order through a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA)

– Provide written notice to applicant to you will be checking credit

– Get applicant’s written authorization to check credit

– If adverse action is to be taken• Provide applicant with “Pre-adverse Action Disclosure” which includes

copy of credit report

• Inform applicant that they will not be hired due to credit check and provide name of CRA and notice of applicant rights to appeal within 60 days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=512GkwoZEFs


Predicting Future Performance• References are not good predictors of performance

– Uncorrected validity is .18 • References are not reliable (r = .22)

– High correlation between two letters written by the same person for two people than between letters written by two people for the same person

– They say more about the person writing the letter than the person being written about

• References are lenient– Fewer than 1% of applicants are rated below average!


Why the Leniency?

• Applicants often choose their own references

• Applicants often have the right to see their files

• Former employers fear legal ramifications


Positive Neutral Negative


References Often Have a Limited Opportunity to View Behavior

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Behavior

Observed

Processed

Remembered

Recalled

%


Potential Legal Ramifications

• Negligent hiring http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQeHuAe4E4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozMVeRT3pec

• Invasion of privacy

• Negligent reference

• Defamation


Defamation

• Three types– libel (written)

– slander (oral)

– self-publication

• Employers have a conditional privilege that limits their liability


Avoiding Liability for DefamationEmployers will not be liable if their

statements were• Truthful

– statements were true

– not true, but reasonable person would have believed them to be true

– opinions are protected unless reference infers opinion is based on facts that don’t exist

• Made for a legitimate purpose

• Made in good faith– don’t offer unsolicited

information

– statements cannot be made for revenge

– avoid personal comments

• Made with the permission of the applicant– use waivers

– let the former employee know if the reference will not be positive


Extraneous Factors Surrounding the Reference

• Reference giver’s ability to articulate

• The extent to which the referee remembers the applicant

• The words used by the reference giver– cuter than a baby’s butt

– she has no sexual oddities that I am aware of

– I have an intimate and caring relationship with the applicant

– Jill is a bud that has already begun to bloom


The Real Meaning of Recommendations

Recommendation Actual MeaningHe is a man of great vision He hallucinates

He is definitely a man to watch I don’t trust him

She merits a close look Don’t let her out of your sight

He’s the kind of employee you can swear by

He likes dirty jokes

She doesn’t mind being disturbed She spent 10 years in a mental hospital

When he worked for us, he was given many citations

He was arrested several times

She gives every appearance of being a loyal, dedicated employee

But, appearances are deceiving


The Real Meaning of Recommendations

Recommendation Actual MeaningIf I were you I would give him sweeping responsibilities

He can handle a broom

She commands the respect of everyone with whom she works

But she rarely gets it

I am sure that whatever task he undertakes, no matter how small, he will be fired with enthusiasm

He will foul up any project

You would be very lucky to get this person to work for you

She is lazy

You will never catch him asleep on the job

He is too crafty to get caught



Personnel Selection Methods• Training & Education• Experience

– Applications/Resumes– Biodata– Interviews

• Knowledge• Ability

– Cognitive– Physical– Perceptual

• Skills– Work Samples– Assessment Centers– References

• Personality & Character– Personality Tests– Integrity Tests

• Medical– Medical Exams– Psychological Exams– Drug Testing


What types of employment tests have you taken?


Predicting Performance Using Training and Education


Ratings of Training

• Education

• Work-Related Training

• Military


Does Education Predict

Performance?


Summary of Meta-AnalysesMeta-analysis Occupation K N ρ

Aamodt (2002) Police 38 9,007 .34

Vineberg & Joyner (1982) Military 35 .25

Ng & Feldman (2009) Many 85 47,125 .09

Hunter (1980)

Hunter & Hunter (1984)

Schmidt & Hunter (1998)

USES data base

425 32,124 .10

Dunnette (1972) Entry level petroleum

15 .00


Education and Incremental Validity

• Schmidt & Hunter (1998) say no

– Cognitive ability (r = .51)

– Cognitive ability and education (r = .52)


Validity of GPA• GPA is a valid predictor of performance on the

job, training performance, starting salary, promotions, and grad school performance

• GPA is most predictive in the first few years after graduation (Roth et al., 1996)

• GPA will result in high levels (d=.78) of adverse impact (Roth & Bobko, 2000)

• People with high GPAs– Are intelligent (r = .50; Jensen, 1980)– Are conscientious (r = .34; Bevier et al., 1998)


Validity of GPAMeta-Analysis Results

r ρWork-Related Criteria

Job performance (Roth et al., 1996) .16 .36

Training performance (Dye & Reck, 1989) .29

Promotions (Cohen, 1984) .16

Salary (Roth & Clarke, 1996)

Starting salary .13 .20

Current salary .18 .28

Graduate School Performance (Kuncel et al., 2001)

Grades .28 .30

Faculty ratings .25 .35


Lingering Questions• Is the validity of education job specific?• What is the actual incremental validity of

education over cognitive ability?• Why would education predict performance?

– Knowledge

– Liberal arts skills

– Mental ability

– Motivation


Predicting Performance Using Applicant Knowledge

• Taps job-related knowledge

• Good validity (ρ = .48)

• Face valid

• Can have adverse impact


Predicting Performance Using Applicant Ability


Cognitive Ability Tests

• High validity (ρ = .51)

• Predicts training and job performance for all jobs (Hunter, 1986)

• The more complex the job, the better cognitive ability tests predict performance



Strengths– Highest validity of all selection

measures (ρ = .51)– Easy to administer– Relatively inexpensive– Most are not time consuming



Weaknesses– Likely to cause adverse

impact– Low face validity– Not well liked by applicants


Perceptual Ability Tests

• Perceptual Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)– Vision (near, far, night, peripheral)– Depth perception– Glare sensitivity– Hearing (sensitivity, auditory attention, sound

localization)


Psychomotor Ability Tests

• Psychomotor Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)– Dexterity (finger, manual)

– Control precision

– Multilimb coordination

– Response control

– Reaction time

– Arm-hand steadiness

– Wrist-finger speed

– Speed-of-limb movement


Physical Ability• Used for jobs with high physical demands• Three Issues

– Job relatedness– Passing scores– When the ability must be present

• Two common ways to measure– Simulations– Physical agility tests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfqWGWzrfI


Physical AbilityPhysical Abilities (Fleishman & Reilly, 1992)

– Dynamic strength (strength requiring repetitions)– Trunk strength (stooping or bending over)– Explosive strength (jumping or throwing)– Static strength– Dynamic flexibility (speed of bending or stretching)– Extent flexibility (Degree of bending or stretching)– Gross body equilibrium (balance)– Gross body coordination (coordination)– Stamina


Predicting Performance Using Applicant Skill


Work Samples

• Applicants perform tasks that replicate actual job tasks

• Advantages– Directly related to the job– Good criterion validity

• Verbal work samples (ρ = .48)• Motor work samples (ρ = .43)

– Good face validity– Less adverse impact than cognitive ability– Provide realistic job previews

• Disadvantages– Can be expensive to develop and maintain


Assessment CentersWhat are They?

• A selection technique that uses multiple job-related assessment exercises and multiple assessors to observe and record behaviors of candidates performing job-related tasks


Guidelines for Assessment Center PracticesJoiner (2000)

• Based on job analysis• Behavioral

classification• Assessment

techniques• Use multiple

assessment exercises• Simulations

• Use multiple assessors• Assessor training• Recording behavior• Reports• Overall judgment

based on integration of information


Assessment Center Exercises

• Leaderless group discussions• In-basket technique• Simulations

– Situational exercises

– Work samples

• Role plays• Case analyses and business

games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eKuQ-RcHqY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyWxjNECRBE&feature=related


Evaluation of Assessment Centers

Reliability– Can have low inter-rater agreement among raters

– Test/retest reliability pretty high (.70)

Validity (Arthur et al., 2003)– Uncorrected .28

– Corrected .38

– Good face validity


Evaluation of Assessment Centers

Weaknesses– Very expensive

– Time consuming

– Can have low inter-rater agreement

– Behaviors can overlap into several dimensions

– Safety of candidates for some work samples


When are assessment centers most appropriate?– Most useful for promotion rather than selection– When candidates have some knowledge of the job– When you have the money to develop and maintain

assessment centers– When you have the time and trainers


Predicting Performance Using Prior Experience


Experience Ratings

• Past behavior predicts future behavior– Experience is a valid predictor of future

performance (ρ = .27; Quinones et al., 1995)

• Types of Experience– Work

– Life


Experience

• Evaluated through:– Application blanks

– Resumes

– Interviews

– Reference checks

– Biodata instruments


Experience

• Considerations– How much experience?– How well did the person perform?– How related is it to the current job?


Experience Predicts Best…

• Credit prior work experience only:– In the same occupational area as that in which performance is to

be predicted

– In the performance of tasks or functions that have direct application on the job

• Recency of experience should be used as a decision rule for awarding credit only when justified on a case-by-case basis

• Credit for duration of work experience should be limited to a few years.

• High prediction up to about 3 years of experience, declining to low prediction for more than 12 years of experience.


Experience for Selection: Some Concerns

• Sullivan (2000) claims that “experience in solving ‘past problems’ is rapidly losing its applicability to current and future problems.”

• Organizations will increase their applicant pool if they delete the “ancient history” requirements (i.e. “Ten years experience required”).


Sullivan (2000)

1) Reduce or eliminate the number of years required in your ads and replace them with “the demonstrated ability to solve problems with our required level of difficulty.

2) Use simulations and actual problems to assess applicants.3) Develop “future-oriented” questions for applicants.4) Train evaluators and compensation professionals to put

less weight on experience of candidates.5) Revise job descriptions to include level of difficulty.6) Identify the amount and type of experience and

competencies that would predict job performance.7) Check to see if there is a correlation between the number

of years of experience an employee has and their success in your firm.


Experience: Some More Concerns

• Performance matters• “Haven’t done” doesn’t mean “can’t do”• Experience has a shelf life• Listing something on a resume is not experience• Where you get your experience matters• Experience does not guarantee success• Experience is expensive• More experience might be bad (old ways and

ideas)


BiodataA selection method that considers an

applicant’s life, school, military, community, and work experience


Example of Biodata Items

Member of high school student government?

Yes No

Number of jobs in past 5 years?

1 2 3-5 More than 5

Transportation to work:

Walk Bus Bike Own Car Other


Development of Biodata Items

• Choose a job

• Create pool of potential biodata items

• Choose a criterion to measure behavior

• Prescreen items and test on employees

• Retest items on second sample of employees


Biodata StandardsGandy & Dye, 1989; Mael, 1991

Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items

Historical

How old were you when you got your first paying job?

Future or Hypothetical

What position do you think you will be holding in 10 years?

External

Did you ever get fired from a job?

Internal

What is your attitude toward friends who smoke marijuana?

Objective

How many hours did you study for your bar exam?

Subjective

Would you describe yourself as shy?

First-hand

How punctual are you about coming to work?

Second-hand

How would your teachers describe your punctuality?


Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata ItemsDiscrete

At what age did you get your driver’s license?

Summative

How many hours do you study during an average week?

Verifiable

What was your grade point average in college?

Non-verifiable

How may servings of fresh vegetables do you eat everyday?

Controllable

How many tries did it take you to pass the CPA exam?

Non-controllable

How many brothers and sisters do you have?

Equal Access

Were you ever class president?

Non-equal Access

Were you ever captain of the football team?

Job Relevant

How many units of cereal did you sell during the last calendar year?

Not job relevant

Are you proficient at crossword puzzles?

Noninvasive

Were you on the tennis team in college?

Invasive

How many young children do you have at home?


Biodata Scoring

Variable Long Tenure (%)

Short Tenure (%)

Differences in %

Unit Weight

Education

High School 40 80 -40 -1

Bachelor’s 59 15 +44 +1

Masters 1 5 -4 0


Strengths of Biodata

– Good validity (r = .36, ρ= .51)

– Can predict for variety of criterion measures

– Easy to administer

– Relatively inexpensive

– Fairly valid

– Can have good face validity


Weaknesses of Biodata

– Low face validity

– Can invade privacy

– Items can be offensive

– Expensive to develop

– Not always practical to develop


Validity Issues

• Shrinkage?

• Good validity but not sure why

• Validity seems to drop when items based rationally (job analysis) rather than empirically



Personality Inventories

Personality is a collection of traits that persist across time and situations and differentiate one person from another


Differences in Personality Inventories

• Types of Personality Inventories– Measures of normal personality– Measures of psychopathology

• Basis for Personality Dimensions– Theory based– Statistically based– Empirically based

• Scoring– Objective– Projective


Five-Factor Model (The Big 5)

Openness to Experience – imaginative, curious, cultured

Conscientiousness– organized, disciplined, careful

Extraversion– outgoing, gregarious, fun-loving

Agreeableness – trusting, cooperative, flexible

Neuroticism (emotional stability)– anxious, insecure, vulnerable to stress


Validity of Personality

Meta-Analysis

Hurtz & Donovan (2003)

Barrick & Mount (1991)

Tett et al. (1991)

Dimension Observed True Observed True Observed True

Openness .03 .06 .03 .04 .18 .24

Conscientiousness .15 .24 .13 .22 .12 .16

Extroversion .06 .09 .08 .13 .10 .13

Agreeableness .07 .12 .04 .07 .22 .28

Neuroticism - .09 - .15 - .05 - .08 - .15 - .19


Comparison of Meta-AnalysesConscientiousness

Hurtz & Donovan (2003)

Barrick & Mount (1991)

Tett et al. (1991)

Types of studies included in meta-analysis

Only those developed to tap

Big 5

Any test that could be assigned to a Big

5 dimension

Only studies in which a Big 5 dimension was

hypothesized to be related to

performance

k 42 123 7

n 7,342 19,721 450

Observed validity .15 .13 .12


Evaluation of PersonalityStrengths

– Relatively cheap– Easy to administer– Little adverse impact– Predicts best when based on a

job analysis

Weaknesses– Scale development– Validity– Faking


Interest Inventories• Tap an applicant’s interest in particular

types of work or careers• Poor predictors of job performance (ρ = .13)• Better predictors of job satisfaction


Integrity Tests

• Estimate the probability that applicants will steal money or merchandise

• Used mostly in retail, but gaining acceptance for other occupations


Types of Integrity Tests

Electronic Testing• Polygraph testing

Paper and Pencil Testing• Overt• Personality based


Polygraph Testing

• Polygraph (lie detector) is a machine that measures the physiological responses that accompany the verbal responses an individual makes to a direct questions asked by polygraph operator.


Limitations of the Polygraph

• Emotions other than guilt can trigger responses

• Countermeasures used to avoid detection

• Frequency of false positives

• Frequency of false negatives


Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing

Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 makes it illegal to:• Directly or indirectly require an employee to take a

polygraph• Use, accept, refer to, or inquire about the results of any

polygraph test of any applicant or employee• Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or deny

employment or promotion to (or threaten such actions) against any prospective or current employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to a polygraph


Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing

The following are exempt from these prohibitions

– Private employers providing security services

– Employers who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances

– Federal, state, and local government employees.


Paper and Pencil Integrity Tests

Overt integrity tests• Directly ask for attitudes about theft and

occurrences of theft behavior

Personality based measures• Measure traits linked to several theft related

employee behaviors that are detrimental to the organization


Overt Integrity Tests

Rationale is to measure job applicants’ attitudes and cognitions toward theft that might predispose them to steal at work, especially when both the need and opportunity to steal are present.

Research has shown that the “typical” employee-thief:• Is more tempted to steal• Engages in many of the common rationalizations for theft• Would punish thieves less• Often thinks about theft related activities• Attributes more theft to others• Shows more inter-thief loyalty• Is more vulnerable to peer pressure to steal than an honest employee


Personality-Based Integrity Measures

Employee theft is just one element in a larger syndrome of antisocial behavior of organizational delinquency. Therefore, overt integrity tests overlook a number of other counterproductive behaviors that are costly to the organization


Other Behaviors Integrity Tests Can Predict

• Drug and alcohol abuse• Vandalism• Sabotage• Assault behaviors• Insubordination• Absenteeism• Excessive grievances• Bogus workers compensation claims• Violence


The Validity and Reliability of Integrity Tests

Validity• Theft

• .41 for predicting probability of theft by employees

• Performance (Ones et al. 1993)• Observed = .21

• True = .34

Reliability• Reports of test-retest reliabilities between .90-.70


Evaluation of Integrity Tests

• Advantages– Good validity (ρ = .34)

– Inexpensive to use

– Easy to administer

– Little to no racial adverse impact

• Disadvantages– Males have a higher fail rate than females

– Younger people have a higher fail rate than older people

– Failure has a negative psychological impact on applicants.


Conditional Reasoning Tests

• Designed to reduce faking• Applicants are given a series of statements and asked to select the

reason that justifies each statement• Aggressive individuals tend to believe

– most people have harmful intentions behind their behavior (hostile attribution bias)

– it is important to show strength or dominance in social interactions (potency bias)

– it is important to retaliate when wronged rather than try to maintain a relationship (retribution bias)

– powerful people will victimize less powerful individuals (victimization bias)

– evil people deserve to have bad things happen to them (derogation of target bias)

– social customs restrict free will and should be ignored (social discounting bias).


Graphology

• Concept– A person’s handwriting is a reflection on his or her personality and

character

• Use– 6,000 U.S. organizations– 75% of organizations in France– 8% of organizations in the United Kingdom

• Evaluation– Few studies– Validity depends on the writing sample (Simner & Goffin, 2003)

• Autobiographical (r = .16, p = .22)• Non-autobiographical (r = .09, p = .12)



Drug Testing• Use

– In 2001, 80% of U.S. organizations tested for drugs– In 2003, 4.6% of applicants tested positive for drugs– In 2007, 8.2% of employees admitted to using drugs in

the past month

• Drug users are more likely to– Miss work– Use health care benefits– Be fired– Have an accident


Drug Testing

Forms of Testing– Pre-employment testing– Random selection at predetermined times– Random selection at random times– Testing after an accident or disciplinary action

Responses to the Presence of Drugs– 98% of job offers withdrawn – Current employees who test positive

• 25% are fired after a positive test• 66% are referred to counseling and treatment


Two Stages of Drug Testing

• Initial screening of hair or urine– Cheaper method (about $50)

– Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT)

– Radioimmunoassay (RIA)

• Confirmation test– Typically used only after a positive initial screening

– Thin layer chromatography/mass spectrometry

– More expensive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLDkXj4K2A


Should Organizations Test for Drugs?


Typical Corrected Validity Coefficients for Selection Techniques

Method Validity Method Validity

Structured Interview .57 References .29

Cognitive ability .51 Experience .27

Biodata .51 Situational judgment tests .26

Job knowledge .48 Conscientiousness .24

Work samples (verbal)

.48 Unstructured interviews .20

Assessment centers .38 Interest inventories .10

Integrity tests .34 Handwriting analysis .02

College grades .32 Projective personality tests .00


Adverse ImpactTechnique White-

BlackWhite-

HispanicMeta-analysis

Cognitive ability 1.10 .72 Roth et al. (2001)

GPA .78 Roth & Bobko (2000)

Work sample .73 Roth et al. (2008)

Assessment centers .52 .28 Dean et al. (2008)

Job knowledge .48 .47 Roth et al. (2003)

Situational judgment .38 .24 Whetzel et al. (2008)

Biodata .33 Bobko et al. (1999)

Structured interview .23 Huffcutt & Roth (1998)

Recommendations .22 Aamodt (2002)

Personality .09 Schmitt et al. (1996)

References .08 Aamodt & Williams (2005)

Integrity tests .07 -.05 Ones & Viswesvaran (1998)


Applied Case Study: New London, CT Police Department


Focus on EthicsUsing Personality Inventories

• In your class, your professor will probably ask you to take the Employee Personality Inventory in your workbook. After you do, consider whether or not you want your job performance to be judged based on the results of such a test. Would you say that this test would fairly predict your ability to perform in certain jobs?

• Does it accurately portray how you would fit into an organization’s culture or how you would get along with others? If it doesn’t accurately portray you, would you then say such a test is

• unethical?• Should the tests be better regulated? Are companies right

in using them in their selection process?


Focus on EthicsUsing Personality Inventories

• Do you see any other ethical concerns related to using personality inventories?

• Is there a fairer and more ethical way for companies to determine if applicants will fit into the organizational culture and get along with others?

Documents

© 2013 Cengage Learning References and Testing. © 2013 Cengage Learning Why Check References? Check for resume fraud Find new information about the applicant