Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance.
verifiedmedium profile · Journal of Applied Psychology · 1993
Ones, Deniz S.; Viswesvaran, Chockalingam; Schmidt, Frank L.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
The authors conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis based on 665 validity coefficients across 576,460 data points to investigate whether integrity test validities are generalizable and to estimate differences in validity due to potential moderating influences. Results indicate that integrity test validities are substantial for predicting job performance and counterproductive behaviors on the job, such as theft, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. The estimated mean operational predictive validity of integrity tests for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance is.41. Results from predictive validity studies conducted on applicants and using external criterion measures (i.e., excluding self-reports) indicate that integrity tests predict the broad criterion of organizationally disruptive behaviors better than they predict employee theft alone
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “…testing was further supported by Ones, Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and fellows (1993) when they consistently and systematically reviewed the empirical evidence of using integrity tests to predict both productive and counterproductive job performance (Ones et al., 1993, 1996; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
supports “According to Ones et al. ’ s landmark meta-analysis of integrity tests (1993), they reported an overall validity (corrected for predictor range restriction and criterion unreliability) of .34 and .47 for integrity tests to predict job performance and CWBs, respectively.”
supports “The results show that integrity is the main aspect of work behaviour (Moorman & Grover, 2009), as a predictor of work performance (Ones et al., 1993), and show the quality of leadership in organizations (Karthikevan, 2017).”
supports “Van Iddekinge ’ s team conducted another meta-analysis (2012a) and found considerably lower criterion-related validity of integrity tests on predicting job performance and CWBs in comparison to the data reported by Ones et al. (1993).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.