NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USE OF MEASURES OF HONESTY INTEGRITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, DEPENDABILITY TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND RELIABILITY FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION

This paper is the fourth in a series of reviews of the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection (see Sackett & Decker, 1979; Sackett & Harris, 1984; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989). New developmen...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPersonnel psychology Vol. 49; no. 4; pp. 787 - 829
Main Authors SACKETT, PAUL R., WANEK, JAMES E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.1996
Personnel Psychology, Inc
Subjects
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US
Association (Psychology)
Civil rights
Civil Rights Legislation
Cognitive Ability
Cooperation
Credibility
Doctoral Dissertations
Employee testing
Employment
Essays
Integrity
Legal Problems
Meta Analysis
Personality
Personality Assessment
Personnel selection
Polygraphs
Preemployment screening
Psychological aspects
Researchers
Social Desirability
Test Validity
Validation studies
Validity
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This paper is the fourth in a series of reviews of the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection (see Sackett & Decker, 1979; Sackett & Harris, 1984; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989). New developments reviewed include an examination of professional and congressional inquiry into this area of testing, rapid growth of the validity data base, new insight into similarities and differences between different tests, and links to the Big Five personality dimensions. Inquiries into relationships with other constructs, including cognitive ability, moral reasoning, and social desirability are reviewed, as are applicant reactions to these tests. The effects of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are considered.
Bibliography:istex:4ACC73425BCF7BC8106D0F4B3A72A9A1E280288E
ark:/67375/WNG-GDL0HH2C-P
ArticleID:PEPS787
The senior author acknowledges past (1983–1985) consulting involvement with London House and ongoing professional relationships with many of the active researchers in the integrity testing field. We thank Richard Arvey, Kevin Murphy, and Deniz Ones for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
ISSN:0031-5826
1744-6570
DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb02450.x