The term “personality test” refers to a test that evaluates human characteristics, attitudes, and conduct. In general, this exam provides an introspective self-report that assesses a person’s life skills and attitude toward life and other things. On the other hand, the term “integrity test” is a sort of personality test used to determine whether or not a candidate is honest, trustworthy, and dependable.
The similarities between personality tests and integrity are that they both measure traits, use surveys as a method of data collection, and have a moderate degree of validity. Personality tests are similar to integrity tests in that they both help an employer evaluate whether or not an individual is a suitable fit for both the job and the organization. Additionally, personality tests and integrity tests have certain parallels in that they both measure qualities. Both use questionnaires as their primary data gathering method, both at least a moderate degree of validity, and both are susceptible to distortion and faking of responses. However, whereas personality tests describe behavioral traits and capture up to 75% of an individual’s personality, integrity tests assess an applicant’s honesty and moral character. Personality tests are warranted in the selection process when an organization wants to evaluate whether or not an applicant’s behaviors are in agreement with the organization’s values. Integrity tests are warranted in the selection process when an organization wants to assess whether or not an applicant has the moral fortitude to represent his employer positively. The differences between the two are: integrity tests assess more specific traits than personality tests. The integrity test would relate to dishonest behavior. Integrity tests are appropriate to use where that is important in that job field—examples: banker or security guard. Personality tests are useful for predicting a broader range of performance.
One of the most attractive aspects of cognitive ability tests is valid for a broad range of jobs and organizations. The use of cognitive ability tests would be recommended, particularly for jobs that possess moderate to high levels of difficulty. These tests, on the other hand, apply to a wide range of occupations. One of the most appealing features of cognitive ability tests is that they have been valid across a wide range of professions and organizations. They are, in fact, one of the most reliable forecasters available (Heneman, 2021). The use of cognitive ability tests raises two major concerns:
The structured interview is a standardized method of measuring the applicant face-to-face with job-related questions. The purpose of the structured interview is to make this step a normal, objective, and comprehensive as possible to make the best match possible between the job and the candidate (Heneman, 2021). Some characteristics are unplanned and non-job-related interview content, Speculative questions that may not always be appropriate, Causal reasoning that lacks focus, and job importance. Also lack preparedness on the part of the interviewer.
Mixed models of EI saw as a melange of capabilities and general attitudes for versatile individuals working and adapting to ecological requests. The build incorporates various parts of enthusiastic and individual information and individual working that are somewhat inexactly identified with feeling, including inspiration, character characteristics, demeanor, character, and social abilities. The ability models view EI as a well-defined and theoretically related arrangement of intellectual capacities for preparing enthusiastic data and controlling feelings adaptively (Heneman, 2021). As for the similarity, both the characteristic methodology and the “blended” models share similar estimation techniques for EI, specifically, self-report surveys.
Several legal issues arise from the use of discretionary assessment methods. They include the UGESP, a document addressing the need to determine whether a selection procedure has adverse effects and provide validation requirements for the design. Additionally, there is an issue with ADA conformance pertaining to reasonable job accommodation to applicants and the use of medical tests (Heneman, 2021). To mitigate the problems, a good staffing professional would have to comply with all UGESP staffing demands.
The best way to collect and use drug-testing data in selection decisions is to emphasize drug testing in safety-sensitive jobs as well as in positions where the link between substance abuse and negative outcomes has been documented, using only reputable testing laboratories and ensuring that a strict chain of custody is maintained, asking applicants for their consent and informing them of their test results (also provide rejected applicants an opportunity to appeal), using retesting to validate positive samples from the initial screening test, ensuring that proper procedures are followed to maintain the applicant’s right to privacy, and reviewing the program and validating the results against relevant criteria such as accidents, absenteeism, turnover, and job performance; conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the program.
The first thing an organization must do is to maintain excellent records regarding its selection process. Once the data is collected, an assessment of adverse impact must be made. If no evidence of adverse impact is indicated, then the remaining provisions of UGESP do not apply (Heneman, 2021). However, if there is evidence of adverse impact, the organization will need to 1. validate the selection procedure causing the adverse impact, or 2. eliminate the adverse impact.
I would use the following selection methods to assess the applicants for the HR director job. One, resume, cognitive ability test, job knowledge test, structured interview, and questions from the list of generic interview questions. As for the assessment method, I would choose one that aims to create a valid and useful system that will do a great job matching applicants’ skills to job requirements and comply with all relevant federal and state employment laws. In deciding the most suitable applicant for the position, I will look at their experience and training. They should have a considerable minimum of six years of working experience in HRM administration.
Additionally, their level of education would be essential in determining whether they are organizationally fit. The occupation requires a graduate from a college or university whose major is human resources or business administration (Heneman, 2021). Also, the skills and abilities of the applicant are integral to determining their eligibility. They should know human resources ranging from staffing and compensation to training and performance evaluation. Finally, they should be responsbile. Their ability to supervise human resource activities and the ability to influence others.
