Premium
Justifying Counterproductive Work Behaviors and an Integrity‐based Conditional Reasoning Test: Back to the drawing board?
Author(s) -
Fine Saul,
GottliebLitvin Yael
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/ijsa.12042
Subject(s) - psychology , counterproductive work behavior , set (abstract data type) , construct (python library) , typology , test (biology) , work (physics) , social psychology , construct validity , measure (data warehouse) , cognitive psychology , psychometrics , applied psychology , computer science , developmental psychology , data mining , organizational citizenship behavior , mechanical engineering , paleontology , archaeology , biology , organizational commitment , engineering , history , programming language
Conditional reasoning tests ( CRT ) were proposed as an innovative approach to implicitly measure the rationalizations toward counterproductive work behaviors ( CWB ) often associated with overt integrity tests. The authors first set out to map a typology of justification mechanisms for general CWB , and to then validate a new integrity‐based CRT in both honest and faking testing conditions. Unfortunately, while demonstrating encouraging construct and criterion validity in the honest testing condition, the test was less resistant to faking than originally anticipated, and ceased to be valid in the faking condition. Overall, the results provide theoretical insight toward understanding how employees justify CWB , but raise concerns regarding the potential operational limitations of at least some CRT s.