See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227672931

Development and Validation of a Situational

Judgment Test of Employee Integrity

Article in International Journal of Selection and Assessment September 2005

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00319.x

CITATIONS READS

34 93

1 author:

Thomas E. Becker
University of South Florida Sarasota Manatee
40 PUBLICATIONS 3,591 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Thomas E. Becker
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 27 September 2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 2005

Information Exchange Article

Development and Validation of
a Situational Judgment Test of
Employee Integrity
Thomas E. Becker
University of Delaware

Based on Beckers theory (1998) and pilot work (2000), I developed a situational
judgment test of employee integrity. In this study, I examine whether scores on this test
predict integrity-relevant outcomes. The analysis of data from fast service employees,
engineers, and production workers revealed that employees integrity scores were
correlated with managerial ratings of career potential, leadership activities, and job
performance. Integrity was not related to the quality of interpersonal relationships.

T he purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive

validity of a new measure of employee integrity. This
measure, in the form of a situational judgment test, is based
on Beckers (1998) conceptualization and his pilot work
demonstrating that certain attributes especially rational
decision making, benevolence, honesty, independent think-
ing, justice, and productivity are characteristic of high-
integrity employees (Becker, 2000). This same pilot work
suggests that common consequences of integrity are likely
to include respect and trust, positive relationships, career
progress, positive influences on others, serving as an
advisor, and positive business outcomes. I turn now to a
description of the new measure and the study assessing its
validity.
Method
Creation of the Test
With the intent of developing a realistic and non-
transparent measure of employee integrity, I created a
situational judgment test composed of 20 business scenar-
ios, each one involving a potential workplace dilemma.
I chose a situational judgment test format because this
method of measurement is typically a valid predictor of job
performance (McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion,
& Braverman, 2001) and frequently resistant to faking
(McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001). The scenarios are included in
*Address for correspondence: Thomas E. Becker, University of
Delaware, Department of Business Administration, Newark,
DE 19716-2710. E-mail: beckert@lerner.udel.edu
the appendix, and the entire instrument takes about 2030
minutes to complete. Although I had certain integrity
values in mind when I wrote a given scenario, I did not try
to force each scenario to reflect one and only one value. In
my judgment, this would have produced an artificial
measure because the dilemmas faced in real life require
an employee to apply his or her values in toto. That is, we
bring a set of values to complex moral situations, and how
we respond to that situation is in part a function of that set
of integrity values.
I gathered data from 307 upper-level business students
to develop an empirical scoring key, applying a technique
often used with situational judgment tests. To accomplish
this, I dummy-coded participants responses to every
option (AD), where 0 5 the response was not chosen
and 1 5 it was. I then correlated responses to each option
with ratings of integrity provided by respondents and
others who knew them well. Raters (self and others) were
asked to use a series of Likert-type scales to indicate how
true/false certain integrity-related statements were of the
target individual (e.g., I wish I had more courage to do
what I know is right [reverse-scored], This person is
extremely honest,). In selecting other persons to serve
as raters, students chose family members, friends, and
co-workers.
My decision rules for creating the scoring key were: if a
response to a given scenario was positively and signifi-
cantly correlated with scores on one or more of the scales
on the second measure (ratings by self and/or other), the
response was scored a 1; if it was negatively and
significantly correlated with scores on one or more of the
scales it was scored a 1; and if it was not significantly

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 225
226
correlated with scores on any of the scales it was scored a
zero. Thus, under the empirical scoring scheme, it was
possible for there to be more than one right answer to the
scenarios. The scoring of all 20 items is included in the
appendix. One item, #3 in the appendix, has zeros for all
four response options and, therefore, can be dropped in the
future. I turn now to a study of the validity of the scenarios-
based integrity measure.
Participants and Procedure
This study utilized three samples of employees from two
organizations. The first was a group of 86 fast-service
employees from nine restaurants in the same chain located
in a mid-Atlantic state of the United States. This sample
included cooks (DOD 35-2011.00), food preparation
workers (DOT 35-2021.00), and combined food prepara-
tion and serving workers (35-3021.00). Their average age
was 26.6 and average tenure 44.2 months, and 51.2% were
male; 63.4% were white, 15.9% Hispanic, 11.0% black,
7.3% Asian, and the remainder other ethnic backgrounds.
The second sample was 128 production workers at a large
plastics manufacturing plant in the southern United States.
This group included production laborers (DOT 51-
9198.01), production helpers (DOT 51-9198.02), and
other production workers (DOT 51-9199.99). Their
average age was 39.2 and average tenure 35.4 months,
and 64.8% were female; 74.8% were black, 22.1% white,
0.8% Hispanic, and the remainder other ethnic back-
grounds. The final sample was 59 mechanical engineers
(DOT 17-2141.00) at the same manufacturing plant. Their
average age was 36.7 and average tenure 84.6 months, and
78.0% were male; 94.9% were white, 3.4% Asian, and the
remainder other ethnic backgrounds.
For sample 1, the scenarios measure was delivered to
managers at the nine restaurants who, in turn, gave them to
their employees. Employees filled out the instrument
during their shifts and put the completed measure in a
sealed box that was later picked up by the author. For
samples 2 and 3, copies of the instrument were mailed to
the director of human resources who distributed them to
managers of the production and engineering staff. Man-
agers then gave the instrument to employees, who
completed it during working hours. Completed measures
were returned to the human resource director via internal
mail, and the director then mailed them en masse to the
author. Employees were asked to put their names on the
questionnaires so that their data and managerial assess-
ments could be collated. A cover letter to all employees
explained that the data would be used for research
purposes only.
Outcomes Measure
Based on Beckers (2000) study, I created 30 items intended
to measure the likely outcomes of integrity. These included
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
THOMAS E. BECKER
respect and trust, career progress, good working relation-
ships, having positive influences on others, serving as an
advisor, increasing business outcomes, and conflict. In
addition, I included Williams and Andersons (1991) six-
item in-role performance scale. The resultant questionnaire
was completed by managers using a seven-point scale
where 1 5 strongly disagree, 2 5 disagree, 3 5 slightly
disagree, 4 5 neither disagree nor agree, 5 5 slightly agree,
6 5 agree, and 7 5 strongly agree. The items were stag-
gered in the order just described (an item on career progress
followed by an item on working relationships, and so on).
Three items were dropped because of a large number of
missing values. The remaining 27 items are contained in
Table 1.
Results
The lowest possible score on the integrity measure is 18
and the highest scores is 18. The lowest observed score in
this study was 3 and the highest was 17. The following is
a summary of the integrity scores for the three samples:
fast service employees: n 5 81, M 5 8.36, SD 5 4.55,
Mdn 5 11.00;
production workers: n 5 124, M 5 10.11, SD 5 3.30,
Mdn 5 11.00;
engineers: n 5 56, M 5 12.11, SD 5 3.56, Mdn 5 13.00;
across samples: n 5 261, M 5 10.00, SD 5 4.00, Mdn 5
11.00.
To examine the structure of the outcomes measure,
I applied principal axis factoring with squared multiple
correlations as communality estimates to fit the common
factor model to the data. An exploratory rather than
confirmatory approach was selected because these items
have never before been analyzed together. I chose the
number of factors based on examination of the scree plot
and differences among eigenvalues. The slope of the plot
flattened after the extraction of the fourth factor, corre-
sponding to the decrease in the differences in eigenvalues
from .62 for Factors 34, to less than .23 for subsequent
factors. Further, with inclusion of the fourth factor, 95% of
the common variance among items was explained. There-
fore, I chose to keep four factors for the remainder of my
analyses. These factors were obliquely rotated to a Harris
Kaiser orthoblique independent cluster solution.
In selecting items for scales, the recommendations of
Ford, MacCallum, and Tait (1986) were followed. These
authors advised against arbitrary decision rules (e.g.,
selecting items with pattern coefficients greater than .30)
and instead called for an examination of the pattern of high
and low coefficients across factors. Rather than applying
heuristics mechanically, Ford et al. (1986) suggested
tempering the process with knowledge of the variables
and professional judgment. The integrity-relevant outcome
scales developed for this study were created primarily
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
A SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TEST OF INTEGRITY 227

based on items loading relatively higher on the factor of
interest and relatively lower on other factors. In addition,
the effect of items on the internal consistency of their scale
was also considered. Seven items were discarded because
they either had low or ambiguous pattern coefficients or
they reduced the internal consistency of the scale for which
they were considered. The pattern coefficients, commun-
alities, and scale selections are reported in Table 1.
After assigning items to scales, I averaged across items to
attain scale scores. The correlations among the scales are
provided in Table 2. Although the correlations are sizeable,
even the largest correlation in the table (r 5.66 between
positive relationships and leadership; r2 5 .4356) reveals
that the majority of variance among the relevant outcomes
is not shared (1 .4356 5 .5644 5 56%). Further, the
factor analysis and meaning of the items support distin-
guishing among the corresponding scales, at least in this
stage of development.
Validity coefficients correlations between scores on
the situational judgment test of integrity and managers

Table 1. Pattern coefficients for outcome measure

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 ^2
h
Factor 1: positive relationships
Gets along well with other people .84 .12 .14 .03 .73
Is someone around whom other people appear .63 .13 .34 .07 .58
to feel relaxed and comfortable
Is well-liked by other people in the company .62 .10 .33 .07 .76
Has positive, close relationships with other people .52 .14 .29 .21 .66
Has high credibility in the eyes of other people .41 .17 .21 .14 .65
Factor 2: career potential
Will probably get promoted soon .05 .96 .12 .07 .78
Is highly likely to get a promotion at work within .13 .95 .03 .01 .76
the next 12 months
Will progress quickly in his or her career. .06 .66 .13 .07 .70
Has a career with a very bright future .14 .46 .15 .25 .71
Factor 3: leadership
Is one whom other people often ask for opinions .16 .16 1.02 .09 .81
Is one whom others gladly rely on to make decisions .18 .03 .99 .04 .82
Is sought out by other people for advice .15 .10 .97 .05 .75
Is someone others can go to to get help on a problem .01 .13 .92 .02 .72
Inspires other people to be very loyal to him or her .01 .18 .78 .17 .69
Inspires other people to be committed to his or her goals .01 .37 .70 .26 .73
Motivates other people to work harder .05 .12 .69 .00 .67
Brings out the best in other people .25 .15 .69 .21 .73
Factor 4: in-role performance
Adequately completes assigned duties .07 .01 .01 .93 .78
Performs tasks that are expected of him or her .01 .08 .05 .93 .75
Meets formal performance requirements of the job .09 .00 .04 .91 .79
Dropped Items
Is highly respected by other people at work .42 .06 .34 .14 .73
Acts in a way that results in higher company profits .01 .16 .21 .54 .62
Has had difficulty with some other people at work .86 .08 .41 .11 .55
Experiences quite a bit of conflict with certain other .98 .02 .30 .13 .68
people in this company. (reverse-scored)
Appears to have more stress at work than do most .60 .07 .30 .05 .37
Neglects aspects of the job he or she is obligated .23 .15 .21 .52 .49
to perform (reverse-scored)
Is trusted by other people at work .48 .12 .40 .13 .75

Note: N 5 261. Dropped items were discarded because they either had low or ambiguous pattern coefficients or they
^2 5 communalities.
reduced the internal consistency of the scale for which they were considered. h

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005 Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005

228 THOMAS E. BECKER

ratings on the outcomes are given in Table 3. To deter-
mine whether there were significant differences among
correlations within a given outcome category (i.e., row
within the table), I performed t-tests of each pair of
correlations within the category (row). Because 15 t-tests
were to be conducted, I set the pair-wise a level at .01,
resulting in a familywise a for the set of tests equal to .15.
None of the differences in correlations were statistically
significant. Thus, it is unlikely that there were meaningful
main effects of sample, or differences in jobs or other
characteristics varying across samples, on integrity-rele-
vant outcomes. I therefore pooled the data across the three
samples and recalculated the validity coefficients based on
the combined data. As shown in Table 3, integrity scores on
the instrument significantly predicted all of the outcomes
except positive relationships, and the overall correlation
across outcomes and samples was .22, po.0001.
Because of unreliability in criterion measures, validity
coefficients for selection tests are often corrected for
attenuation in the criteria (e.g., Sackett & Wanek, 1996;
Vinchur, Schippmann, Sqitzer, & Roth, 1998). In studies
such as this one, the most appropriate index of consistency
is interrater reliability (Schmidt & Hunter, 1996). Meta-
analyses have found the interrater reliability of ratings of
positive working relationships (also known as interperso-
nal competence) to be .47 and of leadership to be .53
(Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). Therefore I used
these values in correcting the correlations in Table 3.
Interrater reliability of in-role job performance has been
shown to be .52 in both U.S. and European samples
(Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, & de Fruyt, 2003;
Viswesvaran et al., 1996). I used this value to correct in-
role performance and the overall correlation. Further,
because career potential could be considered a dimension
of job performance, I used the .52 correction here as well.
After correcting for attenuation in the criterion, the effect
size for the overall correlation across samples was .33.
Because each sample included experienced employees
and excluded applicants and those previously terminated
because of integrity-relevant outcomes (e.g., low perfor-
mance), it is likely that restriction of range existed. However,
I did not have predictor data for individuals not in the
sample and therefore could not correct for range restriction.
Thus, the correlations in Table 3 likely underestimate the
validity coefficients in unrestricted samples.
Conclusion
The findings of the study suggest that scores on the
scenarios-based measure of employee integrity were valid
predictors of integrity-relevant outcomes in real-world
settings. By conventional standards the uncorrected and
corrected correlations for the overall relationships across
outcomes and samples are of moderate magnitude (Cohen
& Cohen, 1983). In addition to predicting job perfor-
mance, scores on the measure predicted rates of promotion
and career progress and status as a team leader. In addition,
the measure is based on an explicit, clear definition of

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations among outcomes

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Positive relationships 5.09 1.10 (.90)
Career potential 4.15 1.41 .61 (.90)
Leadership 4.47 1.26 .66 .63 (.95)
In-role performance 5.54 0.92 .56 .50 .42 (.92)

Note: N 5 261. All correlations are statistically significant, po.05.

Numbers in parentheses are Cronbachs a.

Table 3. Validity coefficients

S1 S2 S3 Combined
Outcomes (n 5 81) (n 5 124) (n 5 56) (n 5 261) rc
Overall .24* .12 .34* .22*** .33
Positive relationships .09 .03 .25+ .09 .15
Career potential .25* .17+ .34* .26*** .36
Leadership .26* .09 .37** .18** .25
In-role performance .21+ .18* .00 .24*** .33

Note: S1, fast service employees; S2, production workers; S3, engineers; and rc is the combined correlations corrected
for attenuation in the criterion. The overall outcome was calculated by averaging across all items in the four criteria.
Within classes of outcomes, no two subsample correlations are significantly different.
+
.05opo.10. *po.05. **po.01. ***po.001.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

A SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TEST OF INTEGRITY
integrity and is intended to capture specific integrity values
rather than general personality traits or other variables that
are related to, but not synonymous with, integrity. This
should allow researchers and practitioners to explain what
they are measuring and why, and move the area away from
the view that integrity is whatever it is that integrity tests
measure.
Appendix: Integrity Scenarios
(with scoring in brackets)
1. Your work team is in a meeting discussing how to sell a
new product. Everyone seems to agree that the product
should be offered to customers within the month. Your
boss is all for this, and you know he does not like public
disagreements. However, you have concerns because a
recent report from the research department points to
several potential safety problems with the product.
Which of the following do you think you would most
likely do?
A. Try to understand why everyone else wants to offer
the product to customers this month. Maybe your
concerns are misplaced. [ 1]
B. Voice your concerns with the product and explain
why you believe the safety issues need to be
addressed. [1]
C. Go along with what others want to do so that
everyone feels good about the team. [ 1]
D. Afterwards, talk with several other members of the
team to see if they share your concerns. [0]
2. You are an architect, and have been asked to work with
a group of three other architects to design a new
building. Each architect has created his or her own
design, and youre now meeting to discuss what to do.
You have seen the other designs, and believe yours is the
best. The other architects seem to agree, but two of them
want to make changes in the way the building looks.
You think the changes reduce the quality of the design.
Of the following, which would you be most likely to do?
A. Work with the others to produce a design that
everyone is fairly satisfied with. [1]
B. Let the others make the changes as they see fit, as
long as they dont drastically alter the basic plan. [0]
C. Bring in your boss to help resolve the disagreement.
[ 1]
D. Explain why you think the original design is better,
and refuse to change your mind unless better ideas
are offered. [0]
3. Youre the president of a small printing company, and
are considering promoting an employee to manager.
There are three candidates for the position. Howard is
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
229
highly qualified for the job but you dont find him very
likable because he is so serious. Chris is slightly less
qualified, but is nicer to you and others than is Howard.
Mary is the least qualified of the three, but is best liked
by you and the other employees. If you had to choose,
who would you most likely promote?
A. Howard [0]
B. Chris [0]
C. Mary [0]
D. None of the above [0]
4. You are a food server in a busy restaurant. Its Friday
night, and you have already put in 45 hours this week.
The owner asks you to work tomorrow night, promising
that you will be given a large dinner party which should
get you a big tip. Which of the following would you
most likely say?
A. Id rather not, thanks. [ 1]
B. Sure! [1]
C. Im kind of tired, but Ill do it if you cant find
someone else. [1]
D. Ill be happy to do it if you can guarante the tip. [0]
5. You are a college professor, and two years ago you were
given guaranteed job security. Youve recently realized
that this has decreased the quality of your work. What
would you probably do?
A. Realize that this is natural high job security leads to
lower quality work. [ 1]
B. Accept that youve moved to a new career stage
where working so hard is not that important. [ 1]
C. Admit that youve gotten a little lazy, set some high
goals, and get back to being productive. [1]
D. Find some things outside the workplace (e.g.,
hobbies, community work) that can replace the
value you used to put on work. [ 1]
6. Youre a new manager and have noticed that your
employees are not happy. Youve hired two experts to
advise you. After talking to employees, the experts give
you their separate reports. One suggests that employees
jobs be made more challenging so they wont get bored.
The other suggests insurance plans be offered so people
know the company cares about them. Assuming that the
reports make equally good arguments, what would you
most likely do next?
A. Call the experts past customers and act on the
advice of the expert with the better reputation. [ 1]
B. Call a meeting of department managers to see what
others think should be done. [0]
C. Contact a third expert to get another opinion. [ 1]
D. Meet with each expert alone, and ask them what
evidence there is that their approach is best. [1]
Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005
230
7. Youre about to open the door to the building where you
work, and you notice an older woman coming up
behind you. She is carrying several packages. What
would you most likely do?
A. Hold the door for her out of courtesy. [1]
B. Walk into the building and let her get the door herself
so as not to offend her. [ 1]
C. Ask her if she would like you to hold the door for her.
If she says yes, do it. If not, dont. [0]
D. Tell her youd like to hold the door for her and see
what she says. [0]
8. Youre a manager doing a performance evaluation for
Jerry. Jerry has not performed well this year. He is mad
because you gave him a rating of 3 (met expecta-
tions) on quality of work, and he believes that he
deserves a 5 (exceeds expectations). You believe the
rating of 3 is fair and accurate, but Jerry threatens to
go to your boss to complain. What would you most
likely do?
A. Tell Jerry to go to hell. [ 1]
B. Explain to Jerry why you gave him the rating that
you did, but refuse to change your rating. [1]
C. Seek a compromise, such as giving Jerry a 4. [ 1]
D. Schedule a meeting with your boss so that you and
your boss can decide which rating is best. [1]
9. LuAnn, one of your co-workers, comes to work wearing
the ugliest blouse that you have ever seen. During a
break she walks up to you and, after some small talk,
asks, How do you like my new blouse? If you had to
say one of the following, which would you mostly likely
say?
A. Its very pretty. Where did you get it? [0]
B. I dont think clothing is a very good measure of a
person. Lets talk about you. [0]
C. Frankly, I dont find it too attractive. [1]
D. Youre asking the wrong person Im not a very
good judge of clothes. [0]
10. Youve a new clerk in a clothing store and are being
trained by Angie, a veteran employee. She quietly tells
you that because employees are paid minimum wage,
most people sometimes take home clothes for them-
selves. Employees who dont are considered dumb and
arrogant. At closing time, Angie hands you a scarf to
take home. Which of the following would you most
likely do?
A. Take home the scarf and keep your mouth shut.
[ 1]
B. Take home the scarf, but return it to the shelf later
without letting other employees see you. [ 1]
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
THOMAS E. BECKER
C. Politely tell Angie that you dont need any more
scarves. [0]
D. Tell Angie that you dont want to take home any
clothes, now or ever. [1]
11. Youre retiring from a successful business that you
started, and must now decide who will replace you.
Two of your children want the position and would
probably do a fine job. However, three non-family
employees are more qualified. Who would you most
likely put in charge?
A. The best performing non-family member, because
the most qualified person deserves the job. [0]
B. The lowest performing non-family member,
because this wont hurt your childrens feelings.
[ 1]
C. The highest performing child, because you have the
right to do what is best for your kids. [0]
D. The child you love the most, as long as he or she is
able to do the job. [ 1]
12. As a top boss in a large company, your job is to create
and manage the companys pay policies. Which of the
following plans would you most likely favor, at least
given what you know now?
A. A seniority plan where pay is based on how long an
employee has been with the firm. [ 1]
B. A merit plan where pay is based on individual job
performance. [1]
C. A work team plan where pay is based on the
performance of the team and everyone on the team
gets paid the same. [ 1]
D. A profit sharing plan where everyone shares profits
equally without regard to job performance. [ 1]
13. You own a company and are trying to decide whether
you should spend $15 million to begin selling products
in China. You have heard everyones opinions, seen the
data, and read all the reports. Now you must decide
what to do. How would you most likely make the
decision?
A. Go with your intuition because your gut feeling is
seldom wrong. [0]
B. Just decide, understanding you can probably
change your mind if things dont go as you hope.
[ 1]
C. Realizing that two heads are better than one, talk
to a respected friend outside of work to see what he
or she thinks should be done. [ 1]
D. Make a list of the pros and cons, consider how
likely each is to occur and, if the pros outweigh the
cons, decide in favor of China. [1]
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
A SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TEST OF INTEGRITY
14. Over lunch, two of your co-workers are gossiping
about a new employee who is overweight and a bit
slow in learning. Frank, one of your peers, turns to you
and says I hate working with fat, dumb people, dont
you? Of the following, which would you most likely
say?
A. I prefer not to talk about people behind their
backs. [1]
B. Lois would be alright if she would just lose some
weight. [ 1]
C. Youre an idiot, Frank. Keep you damn opinions
to yourself. [1]
D. Actually, I think Lois is very smart. [0]
15. Youre seated at a table on which there is a hat. A job
interviewer puts a dollar under the hat and says, Im
going to leave. You decide whether to take the dollar
and if you want to tell me you took or didnt take it.
When I return, Ill ask you if you took it and then guess
whether youre lying. If you tell the truth, you get fifty
cents. If you lie and I guess you told the truth, you get
the dollar. If you lie and I guess it, you get nothing. He
leaves. What would you most likely do?
A. Take the dollar and tell the recruiter you did
not. [0]
B. Take the dollar and tell the recruiter you took it.
[ 1]
C. Do not take the dollar and tell the recruiter you did
not take it. [1]
D. Do not take the dollar and tell the recruiter that
you took it. [ 1]
16. You are a nurse. Dr. Jones arrives to perform a heart
operation, and you smell beer on his breath. You tell
your supervisor, but she says that you should keep
quiet. What would you most likely do?
A. Listen to your boss following the chain of
command is essential to a hospitals success. [0]
B. Wait to see how Jones does during the operation. If
he struggles, insist something be done. [0]
C. Trust the surgeon: smelling beer on someone does
not mean they are drunk. [ 1]
D. Confront Jones. If he insists on operating, dont
participate and put your concerns in writing. [1]
17. Two buyers are bidding to buy your company.
Company A offers a high price and promises not to
lay off any employees. Company B bids a lower price
but offers you one million dollars to accept their bid.
A lower price means less money for other owners
and less job security for employees. However, you
have your own future to think about. What would you
most likely do, and why?
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
231
A. Vote for selling to Company A because it is the
fairest option for all concerned. [1]
B. Vote for selling to Company B so you can take care
of yourself and your family. [ 1]
C. Vote for selling to Company A because your
employees security is the most important thing. [0]
D. Vote for Company B because it would be unfair for
others to benefit at your expense. [0]
18. Youve been working hard over the last few years,
putting in 60 hour weeks and doing what it takes to get
ahead. You love your job, and your career is going just
as you dreamed it would. One night over dinner, your
husband/wife (or boyfriend/girlfriend) tells you that
you must quit working so many hours or he or she will
leave you. There are no children involved, but this is a
person that you love very much. On the other hand,
youre pretty sure that cutting back on hours will
hinder your career. Which of the following responses
would you most likely make?
A. Listen to the person and try to understand their
point of view. Explain to them how much you love
them and why your relationship is so important to
you. Cut back on hours so that your relationship
wont suffer, and explain the situation to your boss
and co-workers. [0]
B. Ask the person why they are dissatisfied with the
relationship, and carefully listen to their answer.
Explain to them why work is so important to you,
and try to work with them to find a way to build a
stronger relationship. Continue working as you
have over the last few years. [0]
C. Listen to the other persons point of view and tell
them your own. Then try to find a compromise
solution. For example, if the other person wants
you to work 40 hours and you want 60 hours, settle
on 50 hours. As another example, perhaps you can
work 60 hours some weeks and 40 hours other
weeks. [1]
D. Assert your right to pursue your career in the
manner you see fit. Tell the person that if they cant
understand the way you feel, then your relation-
ship must not mean very much to them. [ 1]
19. A few days ago, one of your customers asked you when
a certain shipment of your products would be
delivered. You knew it would take at least two weeks
until delivery, but to keep the customer from getting
mad you told them it would be no more than one week.
Had this actually happened, what would you be most
likely to do now?
A. Let it go this time, but resolve not to do this again.
Confide in several people you trust about what you
did, and listen to their advice. [0]
Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005
232
B. Talk to shipping and see if they can get the shipment
there in under two weeks. Make clear to them that
it must arrive in under 10 days. [ 1]
C. Call the customer back and tell them that you were
mistaken and that the shipment will not arrive for
at least two weeks. [1]
D. Understand that this sort of thing is necessary in
business and that most everyone knows that
promises such as this might not be kept. [ 1]
20. It is a beautiful day outside sunny, warm, and
inviting. You are scheduled to work, but you are
tempted to take the day off and go to the beach with
some friends. In all honesty, which of the following
would you most likely do?
A. Call in sick and go to the beach. [0]
B. Go into work and work as hard as you usually
do. [1]
C. Call your boss and tell him or her that youd like
to go to the beach, and see if your boss can find
someone else to work for you. [ 1]
D. Go into work but do not work as hard as
normal. [0]
References
Becker, T.E. (1998) Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty
and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23,
154161.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
THOMAS E. BECKER
Becker, T.E. (2000, August). Hallmarks and consequences of
integrity in organizations: The employees perspective. Paper
presented at the 2000 annual Academy of Management Meet-
ings, Toronto.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edn.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C. and Tait, M. (1986) The application
of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical
review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291314.
McDaniel, M.A., Morgeson, F.P., Finnegan, E.B., Campion, M.A.
and Braverman, E.P. (2001) Use of situational judgment tests to
predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 730740.
McDaniel, M.A. and Nguyen, N.T. (2001) Situational judgment
tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103113.
Sackett, P.R. and Wanek, J.E. (1996) New developments in the use
of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, depend-
ability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 787829.
Salgado, J.F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C. and de Fruty, F.
(2003) International validity generalization of GMA and
cognitive abilities: A European community meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 56, 573605.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1996) Measurement error in
psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios.
Psychological Methods, 1, 199223.
Vinchur, A.J., Schippmann, J.S., Switzer, F.S. III. and Roth, P.L.
(1998) A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance
for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586597.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D.S. and Schmidt, F.L. (1996) Comparative
analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 557574.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991) Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601617.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005