English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although the use of integrity testing during the application process has become a frequent practice in general business settings, their use has been rather non-existent in the field of corrections. This limited use may stem from a lack of awareness about integrity tests in corrections, as well as a lack of integrity measures that have been normed and validated for use with correctional applicants. This study outlines the development, reliability and validity for the Critical Hire®-Screen (CH-S), an overt integrity assessment measure developed for probation, parole, and other correctional officer job applicants. Four separate studies were conducted and provide evidence for the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity for the CH-S. Results provide initial support for its use as a tool correctional agencies could use to measure various traits of integrity at a pre-offer phase in the hiring process. CRITICAL HIRE® – SCREEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 3 Initial Reliability and Validity for the Critical Hire® Screen Integrity is a critical characteristic for any employee. As Warren Buffet stated, “When looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you” (Schwantes, 2018). The use of assessments that measure job applicant integrity has grown exponentially since the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, prohibiting the use of polygraphs for all but a select few employment settings. Initially developed as a surrogate for the polygraph, and designed to measure dishonesty, integrity tests have expanded in type (e.g., overt vs personality-based tests; Sacket, Burris, & Callahan, 1989), and scope, evaluating the risks for poor job performance and a wide variety of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as theft, drug use, disruptive behaviors, and violence in the workplace (Berry, Sackett & Wiemann, 2007). Integrity tests have since been identified as the most widely used type of assessment tool for predicting CWBs among job applicants and employees (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, & Basis, 2010). This popularity and widespread use stems largely from the extensive empirical evidence supporting integrity test’s reliability and validity in predicting job performance and CWBs (Berry, et. al., 2007; Fine, 2013; Fine et al., 2010; Jones, Cunningham, & Dages, 2010; Marcus, Ashton, & Lee, 2013; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Schmidt, Oh, Shaffer, 2016; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Wanek, 1999). For example, Ones et al.’s (1993) comprehensive meta-analysis explored the predictive validity of both overt and personality-based integrity measures, as well as possible moderators impacting validity estimates. Ones et al. revealed that both overt and personalitybased integrity measures significantly predicted overall job performance and CWB for low, medium and high-complexity jobs, as defined by Hunter, Schmidt, and Judiesch (1990). Integrity tests have also been found to be valid predictors of a variety of specific CWBs, such as theft, CRITICAL HIRE® – SCREEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 4 tardiness, property damage, rule-breaking, violence, and absenteeism (Nicol & Paunonen, 2002; Ones et al., 1993; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003). Research has further revealed that integrity tests add significant incremental validity to measures of general mental ability in predicting job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt et. al., 2016), which are well known in the field for having high levels of validity for predicting job performance when compared to other personnel measures (Hunter, 1986; Hunter & Hunter, 1984, Hunter & Schmidt, 1996; Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt, 2002; Schmidt, Schaffer, & Oh, 2008). Counterproductive work behaviors, poor job performance and deficiencies in integrity are problematic for any organization, but can be exceptionally problematic for correctional agencies where its employees are expected to be models of character and integrity, and entrusted to uphold the law, protect the public, and serve as agents of change for their clients. With this expectation, correctional officers have been given considerable power, authority, autonomy, and public trust, making an officer’s integrity a vital and essential characteristic to the health of their agency, the community, and the law enforcement profession as a whole. However, despite the essential function integrity plays in correctional officers, the empirical support for the use of integrity testing in the field of law enforcement (Jones et al., 2010), and the widespread use of integrity testing in other industries, it has been our experience that pre-offer integrity testing remains a less known and utilized process for many correctional agencies. This limited knowledge and use may be due to a level of comfortability and reliance on traditional hiring methods, such as criminal background and reference checks, and/or limited availability of validated integrity tests for correctional applicants. Most selection processes for correctional officers follows a compensatory model and involves an initial screening to ensure the applicant meets minimum qualifications (e.g., age and CRITICAL HIRE® – SCREEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 5 education level). Screening of minimum qualifications are then typically followed by interviews, as well as criminal and employment background checks. However valuable parts of any hiring process, criminal and employment background checks have their limitations. Both checks monitor a candidate’s history, which may or may not raise red flags to concerns regarding the applicant’s integrity and the degree to which they may engage in future CWBs. For example, most employment background checks only give an individual’s start and/or end date, or only provide positive feedback, despite substandard or worse job performance, out of fear of defamation and/or lawsuits. Similarly, criminal background checks have limitations of being difficult to compile and track if the person has lived in multiple states or out of the country. Criminal background checks are also limited by only capturing charges at certain levels of severity, frequently excluding misdemeanors and “lesser” crimes. Many CWBs also occur without being caught, or even reported to authorities if caught, further limiting the utility of criminal background checks. For example, a study from the University of Cincinnati found that, while 64% of small businesses they studied experienced employee theft, only 16% of those businesses reported the incident to police despite the amount stolen averaging $20,000.00 (Brooks, 2014). In some correctional agencies interviews and background checks are followed by postconditional offer, preemployment psychological evaluations (PPEs). Similar to the screening processes listed above, although there are numerous benefits and value in PPEs (e.g., identifying antisocial personality characteristics or significant mental health symptoms), there are also notable limitations. PPEs are expensive and require highly trained and professionally licensed personnel to administer. Additionally, Courts have ruled (Griffin v Steeltek, Inc., 1997; Karraker v Rent-A-Center, 2003) that many of the assessment measures Psychologists use in PPEs (e.g., CRITICAL HIRE® – SCREEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 6 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2) are medical in nature, and would therefore violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines if administered before a conditional offer for employment was given. Therefore, PPEs make up the final step in the hiring process. Identifying an applicant’s propensity for antisocial thinking, attitudes supportive of theft or bribery, or a tendency to violate rules or policies, for example, would naturally be valuable information to obtain through a PPE, but financially costly to uncover at this final stage in the hiring process. Integrity testing, on the other hand, can be administered either at the preor post-offer phase in the hiring process, and when used as intended, do not violate the ADA or EEOC guidelines since they are not considered medical tests, and are not designed, or used, to identify mental disorders (Berry et al., 2007; Stabile, 2002). In addition to obtaining valuable information earlier in the hiring process, incorporating pre-offer integrity tests prior to the post-offer PPE has also been found to reduce costs for hiring agencies. Corey (2008) reported that the applicant disqualification rate for law enforcement officers after post-offer PPEs averaged 25% across the United States. However, when PPEs were preceded by a valid and reliable pre-offer integrity assessment the disqualification rate following a PPE fell to 5%. This 20% reduction in rejection rate has significant cost saving implications for hiring agencies by reducing costs associated with repeated and costly advertising, screening of applications, interviewing, and PPEs. Pre-offer integrity testing may also help hiring agencies save money through potentially reducing turnover and terminations. For example, after implementing integrity tests into their application and hiring process one business saw a 50% reduction in terminations historically caused by employee misconduct such as theft, illegal drug use, and violence over a five-year period (Brown, Jones, Terris, & Steffy, 1987). This reduction in turnover through terminations CRITICAL HIRE® – SCREEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 7 has considerable cost savings. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that replacing a poor performer could cost 30% of that employee’s potential first-year earnings (Fatemi, 2016). With the average annual salary for probation and correctional officers ranging between $43,540 and $56,630 (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), the cost to replace a poor performer, either through inv

Initial Reliability and Validity for the Critical Hire® - Screen