[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-298425-105":59,"doc-detail-298425-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","a-review-of-recent-developmentsin-integrity-test-research","A Review of Recent Developmentsin Integrity Test Research","","A Review of Recent Developments in Integrity Test Research synthesizes new integrity-testing literature published after the previous Sackett and Wanek (1996) review. It examines how item-level work advances understanding of constructs, details ongoing validation against multiple criteria, and summarizes research on fakability, coachability, and efforts to reduce faking. The review also covers emerging test types, subgroup differences, and applicant reactions and cross-cultural issues, framing gaps to guide future study.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-review-of-recent-developmentsin-integrity-test-research/298425/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-review-of-recent-developmentsin-integrity-test-research/298425.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Lucas Vance","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-11","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the main purpose of this review paper?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It provides a comprehensive but readable summary of developments in integrity testing research and practice, and identifies key gaps to influence future research.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does the review categorize integrity testing instruments?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"It includes two categories: overt integrity tests and personality-oriented tests, with overt tests typically addressing theft attitudes and admission of wrongdoing.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What outcomes do integrity tests aim to predict?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Integrity tests primarily aim to predict counterproductive work behaviors, and they have also been shown to predict job performance with incremental validity over cognitive ability.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},298425,1790474626,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},549768064622,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2007, 60, 271–301  \nA REVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTSIN INTEGRITY TEST RESEARCH  \nCHRISTOPHER M. BERRY∗ , PAUL R. SACKETT, SHELLY WIEMANN Department of Psychology  \nUniversity of Minnesota  \nA sizable body of new literature on integrity tests has appeared since the last review of this literature by Sackettand Wanek (1996). Understanding of the constructs underlying integrity tests continues to grow, aided by new work at the item level. Validation work against a growing variety of criteria continues to be carried out. Work on documenting fakability and coachability continues, as do efforts to increase resistance to faking. New test types continue tobe developed. Examination of subgroup differences continues, both at the test and facet level. Research addressing applicant reactions and cross-cultural issues is also reviewed.  \nThis paper is the fifth in a series of reviews of the integrity testing literature (Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989; Sackett & Decker, 1979; Sackett & Harris, 1984; Sackett & Wanek, 1996). As with earlier reviews, the goals are to give the reader a comprehensive but readable summary of developments in this area of research and practice, and to influence future research by identifying key gapsin the literature. This review includes various published and unpublished work between 1995 and 2006, with the goal of identifying relevant work since the last review. We conducted electronic searches of the literature, examined Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference programs, and corresponded with integrity researchers.  \nWe continue to use the term “integrity testing” to refer to the commercially marketed instruments that have been the focus of the previous reviews. This review includes the two categories of instruments that Sackett et al. (1989) labeled “overt” and “personality-oriented” tests. Overt integrity tests commonly consist of two sections. The first is a measure of theft attitudes and includes questions pertaining to beliefs about the frequency and extent of theft, punitiveness toward theft, ruminations about theft, perceived ease of theft, endorsement of common rationalizations for theft, and assessments of one’s own honesty. The second involves requests  \nWe thank Vanessa Tobares for her work in locating and summarizing articles.  \nCorrespondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Christopher M. Berry, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward Ave., 7th Floor, Detroit, MI 48202; [berry@wayne.edu](berry@wayne.edu).  \n∗ Christopher M. Berry is now at wayne State University.  \nCOPYRIGHT  2007 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.  \n272 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY  \nfor admissions of theft and other wrongdoing. Commonly used tests ofthis type include the Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI), the Reid Report, and the Stanton Survey.  \nPersonality-oriented measures are closely linked to normal-range personality devices, such as the California Psychological Inventory. They are generally considerably broader in focus than overt tests and are not explicitly aimed at theft. They include items dealing with dependability, Conscientiousness, social conformity, thrill seeking, trouble with authority, and hostility. Commonly used tests ofthis sort are the Personnel Reaction Blank, the PDI Employment Inventory (PDI-EI), and Reliability Scale of the Hogan Personality Series.  \nIntegrity testing began as an attempt to detect dishonesty in job applicants without having to use polygraph tests. Although no longer viewed as surrogates for polygraphs, the focus typically remains on the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) . Though integrity tests may be designed to predict different specific CWBs, they have generally been found to predict most CWBs approximately equally well. This is not surprising given recent advances in the conceptualization of the CWB domain demonstrating that individual CWBs are related to each other (e.g. , engaging in one ","cbCainRvwvM1bKcg","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainRvwvM1bKcg","pdf",139927,32,"English","# Overview of the Review Scope\n## Literature and methods used\n# Definitions and Instrument Categories\n## Overt integrity tests\n## Personality-oriented integrity tests\n# Theoretical Framework and Outcomes\n## Prediction of counterproductive work behaviors\n## Links to job performance and validity\n# Research Findings Context\n## Reference to prior reviews and major findings","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of this review paper?\",\"answer\":\"It provides a comprehensive but readable summary of developments in integrity testing research and practice, and identifies key gaps to influence future research.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the review categorize integrity testing instruments?\",\"answer\":\"It includes two categories: overt integrity tests and personality-oriented tests, with overt tests typically addressing theft attitudes and admission of wrongdoing.\"},{\"question\":\"What outcomes do integrity tests aim to predict?\",\"answer\":\"Integrity tests primarily aim to predict counterproductive work behaviors, and they have also been shown to predict job performance with incremental validity over cognitive ability.\"}]","A Review of Recent Developmentsin Integrity Test Research | PDF",1789757328,81]