Overview of Employee Turnover Research

The impact of turnover has received considerable attention by senior management, human resources
professionals, and industrial psychologists. It has proven to be one of the most costly and seemingly intractable
human resource challenges confronting organizations. This paper provides a summary of information,
abstracted from published research, on the costs of turnover, factors contributing to its magnitude in
organizations, and proposed remedies.

Costs of Turnover
Analyses of the costs associated with turnover yield surprisingly high estimates. The high cost of losing key employees has
long been recognized. However, it is important for organizations to understand that general turnover rates in the workforce
can also have a serious impact on an organization's profitability, and even survival. There are a number of costs incurred as
a result of employee turnover. These costs are derived from a number of different sources, a few of which are listed below.

1. Recruitment of replacements, including administrative expenses, advertising, screening and interviewing, and
services associated with selection, such as security checks, processing of references, and, possibly,
psychological testing.

2. Administrative hiring costs.

3. Lost productivity associated with the interim period before a replacement can be placed on the job.

4. Lost productivity due to the time required for a new worker to get up to speed on the job.

5. Lost productivity associated with the time that coworkers must spend away from their work to help a new
worker.

6. Costs of training, including supervisory and coworker time spent in formal training, as well as the time that the
worker in training must spend off the job.

7. Costs associated with the period prior to voluntary termination when workers tend to be less productive.

8. In some cases costs associated with the communication of proprietary trade secrets, procedures, and skills to
competitive organizations.

9. Public relations costs associated with having a large number of voluntary or involuntary terminations in the
community spreading gossip about the organization.

10. Increased unemployment insurance costs.

Using an example from the health care industry, Cascio (2000) calculated that the cost of replacing 288 employees per year
(in a hospital with 200 beds employing 1200 persons with a turnover rate of 2% per month) was $2,888,295.52 when all
sources of costs were analyzed. Moreover, a recent Business Week (1998) study estimated that the replacement costs
alone, are over $10,000 for about half of all jobs and approximately $30,000 for all jobs. These estimates highlight the
considerable costs that can be associated with turnover.

The Causes of Turnover

There are a number of factors that contribute to employee turnover. We explore some of these factors in more detail below.

1. The economy - in exit interviews one of the most common reasons given for leaving is the availability of
higher paying jobs. Some minimum wage workers report leaving one job for another that pays only 50 cents an
hour more. Obviously, in a better economy the availability of alternative jobs plays a role in turnover, but this
tends to be overstated in exit interviews.
 2. The performance of the organization - an organization perceived to be in economic difficulty will also raise
the specter of impending layoffs. Workers believe that it is rational to seek other employment.

3. The organizational culture - much has been written about organizational culture. It is sufficient to note here
that the reward system, the strength of leadership, the ability of the organizations to elicit a sense of
commitment on the part of workers, and its development of a sense of shared goals, among other factors, will
influence such indices of job satisfaction as turnover intentions and turnover rate.

4. The characteristics of the job - some jobs are intrinsically more attractive than others. A job's attractiveness
will be affected by many characteristics, including its repetitiveness, challenge, danger, perceived importance,
and capacity to elicit a sense of accomplishment. A job's status is also important, as are many other factors.

5. Unrealistic expectations - Another factor is the unrealistic expectations and general lack of knowledge that
many job applicants have about the job at the time that they receive an offer. When these unrealistic
expectations are not realized, the worker becomes disillusioned and decides to quit.

6. Demographics - empirical studies have demonstrated that turnover is associated in particular situations with
demographic and biographical characteristics of workers. But to use lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking) or past
employment history (e.g. many job changes) as an explicit basis for screening applicants, it is important for
legality and fairness to job applicants to verify such biodata empirically.

7. The person - In addition to the factors listed above, there are also factors specific to the individual that can
influence turnover rates. These include both personal and trait-based factors. Personal factors include things
such as changes in family situation, a desire to learn a new skill or trade, or an unsolicited job offer. In addition
to these personal factors, there are also trait-based or personality features that are associated with turnover.
These traits are some of the same characteristics that predict job performance and counterproductive
behaviors such as loafing, absenteeism, theft, substance abuse on the job, and sabotage of employer's
equipment or production. These traits can be measured and used in employee screening to identify individuals
showing lower probability of turnover.

It is important to note that the factors we've listed above can be classified as being within or beyond the control of the
employing organization. In order to actively participate in reducing costs associated with turnover, organizations need to
identify those factors over which they do have some control and initiate necessary changes to reduce turnover attributable to
these "controllable" factors.

Adopting an effective applicant screening procedures is an efficient and cost effective method of identifying employees who
possess the necessary traits and behavior s to succeed on the job and are, therefore, less likely to leave. SIGMA's
Employee Screening Questionnaire 2 (ESQ2) measures both productive and counterproductive job behavior s and, as such,
provides employers with a tool for reducing involuntary turnover resulting from poor selection decisions. In addition to
reducing involuntary turnover, the ESQ2 also has the ability to reduce voluntary turnover by identifying those applicants who
are likely to be satisfied and committed to their jobs. There is a large body of academic research supporting the intuitive
contention that people who are satisfied with their jobs and committed to their employing organization are more likely to stay
than those who are not (e.g. Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Maertz & Campion, 1998; Meyer, Stanley, Topolnytsky, &
Herscovitch, 2001). In summary, the ESQ2 offers employers an effective and practical method for dealing with turnover and
reducing its associated costs.
 Employee Screening Questionnaire 2
Douglas N. Jackson, Ph.D. © 2001, 2009

The Employee Screening Questionnaire 2 (ESQ2) is one of the simplest ways to lower hiring costs and take
pressure off your over-extended recruiting team. Clients using the ESQ2 pre-employment selection test have
experienced dramatic cost savings through reducing:

• Cost per Hire by over 67%

• Theft by over 80%
• Turnover by over 50%
• Workplace Injuries by 76%

• THE CHALLENGE
• A leading retail client with over 900 locations was experiencing a significant increase in
the number of applications
• for each job posting -an enviable position that afforded them the luxury of being very
selective with new hires.
• However, the larger applicant pool resulted in an increased workload for their recruiting
staff where each day was
• filled just “keeping up” with reviewing resumes and conducting phone and in-person
interviews. There was simply
• no time to be strategic and objective in selecting the best candidates. This labor intensive
process also
• Increased time to hire,
• Increased cost per hire (conservatively $1,100 per position - see table 1), and
• Was not resulting in better hires.
• This organization had to find a valid, objective means of processing all of the applications
while maintaining the
• quality of its hires.
• THE SOLUTION
• This client chose SIGMA’s Employee Screening Questionnaire (ESQ2)
• as a critical component of their hiring process. Applicants are
• administered an online version of the ESQ2 with only those
• applicants receiving satisfactory scores advancing to the next phase
• of the selection process. The client was able to reserve their high
• cost hiring methods for their strongest prospects.
• THE RESULT
• As a result of the redesigned selection process, of which the ESQ2
• was a critical component, the client was able to reduce both time to
• hire and cost per hire by an amazing 67% (see table 1). The client’s
• Director of HR commented that “The resource savings from using
• the ESQ2 cover our testing costs for the year. This is without
• including the cost savings from hiring the right candidates from the
• start, which the ESQ2 does an excellent job of”.
• That cost savings from “hiring the right candidates” translated into
• an 80% reduction in theft in the first 4 months after the client
• implemented the ESQ2. The client’s experience provides compelling
• proof that you can hire smarter and faster by adding science to your
• hiring process with the ESQ2.
• To find out how easy it is to integrate the ESQ2 tool into your hiring
• process and experience the benefits of this powerful tool, contact us
• at 800.265.1285.
• TABLE 1: COST SAVINGS
• Without
• ESQ2
• With
• ESQ2
• Resumes
• Reviewed
• 100 20
• Phone
• Interviews
• 30 10
• In-person
• Interviews
• 53
• TOTAL COST $1,106 $360
• Cost per Hire Savings
• 67% ($746 per position

THEFT SLASHED 90%

EMPLOYEE SCREENIING QUESTIIONNAIIRE -- 2
A CASE STUDY
THE CHALLENGE
A large retail client with locations throughout North America had been using a pre-
employment
assessment for the previous year and a half with minimal success. The assessment
was simply not
having the desired effect on the number of integrity-related terminations (theft,
misconduct, etc.). The
experience unfortunately left the retailer skeptical as to the value of pre-
employment assessments
altogether.
THE SOLUTION
While contemplating the fate of his current assessment process, the retailer was
contacted by SIGMA.
The retailer was understandably skeptical at first. After all, he had heard the same
things from his
current vendor. So, why should he expect anything different from SIGMA?
SIGMA proved with each meeting that there was reason to be optimistic as:
1. He was impressed that everyone he spoke to at SIGMA was truly an expert in
their field.
2. The goal of each discussion was not “selling” but transferring knowledge to
ensure the client
had a solid understanding of the assessment process and how the ESQ2 worked.
3. SIGMA’s confidence in their product was apparent as they were prepared to prove
the value
of the ESQ2 through a complimentary ROI study; the incumbent vendor had
charged several
thousand dollars for the same exercise.
4. SIGMA mapped out formal touch points whereby the value of the ESQ2 would be
evaluated
in regular intervals.
After several discussions, he decided to give SIGMA a chance to prove they could
accomplish what the
incumbent vendor had not.
THE RESULT
As a result of replacing the incumbent solution with SIGMA’s ESQ2, the retailer
found that integrity
related terminations (theft, misconduct, etc) dropped by 80% in the first four
months. One year later,
the reduction is now at 90%.
To find out how easy it is to integrate the ESQ2 into your hiring process and
experience the cost savings
of this valuable tool, contact us at 800.265.1285.

www.SigmaTesting.com
www.SigmaAssessmentSystems.com
www.RPP.on.ca

REDUCIING ACCIIDENT RATES AND ON--THE--JOB

IINJJURIIES
EMPLOYEE SCREENIING QUESTIIONNAIIRE
A CASE STUDY
THE CHALLENGE
A large US-based manufacturing firm with a global presence identified several important
business drivers for introducing an effective employee screening tool. A primary driver
was the
need to reduce accident rates and on-the-job injuries.
THE SOLUTION
The client chose to integrate SIGMA’s ESQ as a screening tool for hourly employees.
THE RESULT
In 1998, prior to adopting the ESQ, the company experienced an injury rate of 17%.
Following
the introduction of the ESQ in 2003, that year the injury rate plummeted to less than
4%.
TESTIMONIAL
“I have administered several hundred Employee Screening Questionnaires (ESQ's) to
assist in the
selection of manufacturing personnel. After this group had been employed with us for
over a
year, we compared this group’s performance to the performance data collected from
employees
not hired using the ESQ. The results were dramatic. Of those hired using the ESQ, there
was only
a single on-the-job injury in more than a year. This represents a significant reduction in
injuries
when compared to employees not selected using the ESQ, saving our organization a
great deal of
money.
We recently had an applicant receive a high score on “risk of on-the-job substance
abuse.” This
person failed our drug screen.”
HR Director

The ESQ2 does this by:

• Identifying top candidates early in the hiring process

• Screening out problem candidates before they become your problem
• Reserving interviews and high cost hiring techniques for top candidates
• Enhancing the objectivity and consistency of your hiring process

SIGMA's Employee Screening Questionnaire (ESQ) was one of the first pre-employment tests to use a forced-
choice format.
 With the recent release of our ESQ2 nearly a decade later, we still find ourselves among a select few using the forced-
choice approach.

Although research, client success, and common sense supports the superiority of SIGMA’s approach, the majority of pre-
employment testing companies still rely on out-dated single-stimulus items such as the following:

Yes No
I return extra change when a cashier makes a mistake.

Comparing the two approaches above, it is clear why the method used in the ESQ outperforms traditional pre-employment
tests 2-1. However, don’t just take our word for it.

1. Take some time to read the research supporting our approach and the client successes demonstrating the
superiority of the ESQ2.

2. Take a look at sample questions from another vendor you are considering (or the one that you currently use)
and ask yourself:

a. Do the items have an obvious "right" answer?

b. Could an applicant "faking good" have a substantial negative impact on the effectiveness of a pre-
employment test?

c. Would it be more difficult to "fake good" on the forced-choice ESQ2 or the pre-employment test(s)
you are considering?

After considering the above, SIGMA and the ESQ2 should be the only right answer to your pre-employment testing needs.
Click here to find out more.

What the ESQ2 Measures

SIGMA’s ESQ2 provides scores for the following work behaviors in addition to providing an Overall Hiring Recommendation:

Positive Work behaviors

• Customer Service

• Productivity

• Accuracy

• Commitment, Job Satisfaction

• Promotability

Negative Work behaviors

• Alcohol and Substance Abuse

• Unauthorized Sick Days

• Driving Delinquency

• Lateness

• Loafing

• Sabotage

• Safety Infractions

• Theft

Click here for a Sample ESQ2 Report.

Why Choose the ESQ2

In 2001, the ESQ was one of the first commercially available pre-employment tests to use a forced-choice format. The
forced-choice format gave the ESQ significant advantages over traditional assessments that include:

• Twice the predictive power

• Higher resistance to faking

• Shorter administration time

Now nearly 10 years later, with the recent release of the ESQ2, we still find ourselves in a very select group that utilizes a
forced-choice format for selection tests. Why would our competitors employ an outdated method when research and client
results clearly demonstrate the superiority of our approach? Simply put, it is much more statistically complex and time
consuming to develop forced-choice tests that offer the same superior psychometric properties such as the ESQ2.

Fortunately, for our clients, we think it is well worth the effort to deliver the ESQ2 using the forced-choice method - it allows
us to offer clients the most relevant and valid hiring tool on the market.

Simple to Use
Even the best pre-employment assessment is of no value if it increases your workload. In addition to helping you identify the
best candidates, our goal with the ESQ2 is to save you time and money by simplifying your hiring process. We have
accomplished this by:

• Ensuring streamlined implementation that takes hours, not weeks

• Offering a variety of efficient delivery options that range from fax-based to online scoring

• Delivering immediate results

Reserch:

The Impact of Faking on

Employment Tests: Does Forced
Choice Offer a Solution?
Douglas N. Jackson and Victor R. Wroblewski
Department of Psychology
The University of Western Ontario, Canada
Michael C. Ashton
Department of Psychology
Brock University, Ontario, Canada
We evaluated the effects of faking on mean scores and correlations with self-reported
counterproductive behavior of integrity-related personality items administered in single-
stimulus and forced-choice formats. In laboratory studies, we found that respondents
instructed to respond as if applying for a job scored higher than when given standard
or “straight-take” instructions. The size of the mean shift was nearly a full
standard deviation for the single-stimulus integrity measure, but less than one third of
a standard deviation for the same items presented in a forced-choice format. The correlation
between the personality questionnaire administered in the single-stimulus
condition and self-reported workplace delinquency was much lower in the job applicant
condition than in the straight-take condition, whereas the same items administered
in the forced-choice condition maintained their substantial correlations with
workplace delinquency.
Paper-and-pencil integrity testing was considered in the early part of the 20th century
when Hartshorne and May (1928) investigated the use of such tests as predictors
of dishonesty in children. Although studied since World War II (Betts, 1947;
Houtchens & Betts, 1947), the first commercially published integrity test for job
applicants did not appear until the work of Ash (1971) and his development of the
HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 13(4), 371–388
Copyright © 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Douglas N. Jackson, P.O. Box 610984, Port Huron,
MI 48061–0984.
Reid Report. Integrity tests have been classified into two types: overt tests, in which
respondents answer direct questions regarding attitudes toward theft and past transgressions,
and personality-oriented tests, in which respondents answer questions to
assess personality traits associated empirically with integrity and good job performance
(Sackett, Burris, & Callaghan, 1989).
Recent literature reviews have described extensive use of integrity testing in
personnel selection (Sackett et al., 1989; Sackett & Harris, 1984; Sackett &
Wanek, 1996). According to some reviews, currently available paper-and-pencil
questionnaires of integrity have demonstrated only modest validity in predicting
the delinquency of potential employees (Sackett et al., 1989; Sackett & Harris,
1984), but in a recent meta-analysis, Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) reported
relatively high corrected validities, averaging .41 for personality-oriented
integrity tests predicting job performance.
FAKING ON INTEGRITY TESTS
Hartshorne and May (1928) mentioned the prevalence of faking and the type of distortion
engaged in by children in test-taking situations. Sackett et al. (1989) described
three types of faking in job application testing: faking good, faking bad, and
faking a specific job role. Faking good involves responding to the questionnaire so
as to portray oneself in a generally positive light, whereas faking bad represents attempting
to present a negative impression. The third type of faking is faking a specific
job role, such as an air force captain or a psychiatric nurse (Mahar, Cologon,&
Duck, 1995). Faking good has particular relevance to personnel selection and is the
focus of this study. It has long been recognized that faking occurs when job applicants
are motivated to make a good impression, but its impact on validity remains
controversial.
The susceptibility of workplace measures to faking good has been widely researched
(Dunnette, McCartney, Carlson, & Kirchener, 1962; Furnham, 1990; see
Sackett et al., 1989; Sackett & Harris, 1984; Sackett & Wanek, 1996, for reviews).
Individuals have been shown generally to be able to fake good if the situation motivates
them to give a favorable impression (Furnham, 1986). Faking good has been
demonstrated to occur with a wide variety of employment selection tests (see
Furnham, 1986, 1990).
DETECTING AND CORRECTING FOR FAKING
Dealing with respondents who distort responses on personality tests has traditionally
involved one of two methods (Sackett&Decker, 1979): disqualification of respondents
by using lie scales, or correction of scores for faking. Lie scales have
372 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
been used to detect those who are motivated to present an unrealistically favorable
impression, but the problem with disqualification is that it will eliminate without
further consideration some potentially qualified candidates who might not, in fact,
be consciously lying. Correction for faking has been attempted for some published
personality tests with limited success (Christiansen, Goffin, Johnston,&Rothstein,
1994; Ellingson, Sackett, & Hough, 1999; Hough, 1998; McHenry, Hough,
Toquam, Hanson,&Ashworth, 1990). Attempts to correct for faking are based on a
suppressor variable rationale, but because suppressor variables can have only negligible
effects even under ideal conditions. At low to moderate levels of validity, attempts
to correct scores for faking can have little impact on validity and are, in fact,
misguided and futile (Conger & Jackson, 1972).
Other approaches to the problem of motivated distortion have been proposed.
Nederhof (1985) discussed a comprehensive list of possible solutions, including
their perceived benefits and drawbacks. One approach that is of particular interest
in this research is the use of a forced-choice question format. The recommended
method for creating forced-choice items involves matching items on statistical
properties, such as the social desirability of items. Notwithstanding the number of
published studies on the forced-choice technique (e.g., Christiansen, Edelstein, &
Fleming, 1998; Dunnette et al., 1962; Graham, 1958; Hicks, 1970; Villanova,
Benardin, Johnson, & Dahmus, 1994; Waters, 1965; Zavala, 1965), its relative
lack of popularity might have stemmed from the technical problems associated
with scale construction, including the difficulties of finding items to pair that appear
to be equally valid but in fact are not.
Even though the approaches summarized by Nederhof (1985) are more than a
decade old, research on the detection and correction of faking on job selection
questionnaires continues. Some might argue that the whole issue is a red herring
with no need for a solution (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss,
1996). Others would disagree. We take up this issue from the standpoints of some
technical issues and empirical data. Given that no conclusive solution to the problem
of faking has yet been demonstrated, the purpose of this study was to investigate
a test format that might deter or reduce faking.
FORCED-CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRES
Forced-choice questionnaires represent one possible method of minimizing the
problem of faking in employment testing by making the task of responding desirably
much more difficult. If respondents are motivated to make the best possible
impression, being forced to choose between items similar in perceived relevance to
the job tends to reduce this type of impression management.
The use of forced-choice methodology in personality assessment has been
known since the 1940s through the unpublished work of Horst and Wherry (see
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 373
Zavala, 1965). It was partially through Horst’s influence that Edwards (1954) developed
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, a standardized forced-choice
personality questionnaire.
Christiansen et al. (1998) recently argued that criticisms against
forced-choice formats (see Nederhof, 1985) might be overstated. They administered
personality-adjective scales in single-stimulus (Likert scale) format and in
binary forced-choice format to 350 participants. Half of the participants completed
the scales under normal instructions, and the other half under instructions
to respond as if applying for a job in sales. Christiansen et al. found that the difference
between the means of the normal instruction group and the applicant instruction
group was smaller for the forced-choice scales than for the
single-stimulus scales. They also investigated the correlations of the scales with
a personality questionnaire administered under normal instructions. For the job
applicant conditions, the correlation of the single-stimulus scales with the criterion
personality scales was much lower than the correlations using the normal
instructions (“straight-take”) sample, but the correlation for the forced-choice
scales was almost as high for the applicant condition as it was for the
straight-take condition, even though the item formats differed between the
forced-choice condition and the comparison personality scales.
In this research we took steps to minimize the problems associated with
forced-choice test formats. First, we matched personality items with unscored
items and those from several different trait scales that were considered irrelevant
to our counterproductive behavior criterion, so that the issue of the loss of degrees
of freedom due to ipsative total scores was eliminated. Also, many of the items
within the other scales included apparently job-relevant content, which made those
items attractive distractors for job applicants who try to fake. Finally, we used the
tetrad (Dunnette et al., 1962) or dichotomous quartet method of combining items.
The dichotomous quartet format matches two socially desirable items with two undesirable
items. Respondents are instructed to select, from each quartet, the item
that is most characteristic of their behavior and the item that is least characteristic
of their behavior. Dunnette et al. (1962) and others (Jackson & Payne, 1963) recommended
such a procedure to avoid forcing respondents to endorse one of two
undesirable alternatives.
VALIDATING PERSONALITY-BASED
MEASURES OF INTEGRITY
Sackett et al. (1989) studied many examples of possible methods for validating integrity
tests and subsequently grouped them into five categories: polygraph comparisons,
admissions, future behavior, shrinkage reduction, and contrasted groups.
Of the five, the one of primary interest in this study is correlating the test with
374 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
self-reported behavior, which includes past theft and other counterproductive activities.
Accordingly, in this study, scores on a personality-based dependability
scale are correlated with self-reported measures of on-the-job delinquency as an indication
of the respective correlations with different item formats.
The major purpose of this study is thus to determine whether or not
forced-choice items equated on psychometric properties reduce faking under job
applicant conditions, and whether or not such items maintain correlations with
reported counterproductive behavior under straight-take conditions. We addressed
these questions by administering a personality-based measure of integrity—
the Dependability scale of the Employee Selection Questionnaire (ESQ;
Jackson, in press)—under standard or straight-take instructions and under job
application instructions. The ESQ is a personality questionnaire measuring six
factors, derived from an original pool of more than 3,000 items. Only the dependability
factor was of interest for this study. One group of respondents completed
single-stimulus versions of the ESQ items under both instructional
conditions, and the other group completed a forced-choice version of the same
items, also under both instructional conditions. We assessed the performance of
the dependability items of both formats under both conditions to evaluate the
relative merits of the forced-choice versus single-stimulus formats with regard to
confronting the problem of faking. We hypothesized that the forced-choice scale
would be less susceptible to faking, in terms of both mean score shifts and decrements
in correlation with self-reported counterproductive behavior, than
would the single-stimulus scale.
STUDY 1: DOES FAKING REDUCE PERSONALITY
SCALE CORRELATIONS WITH SELF-REPORTED
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR?
The first study involved the administration of dependability items to research participants
in a standard single-stimulus format. This was intended to provide a basis
for comparison with the same items administered under forced-choice instructions
in the second study.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were 84 undergraduate students (39 men and 45 women)
with a median age of 21 years, all of whom reported that they had an employment
history.
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 375
Materials
ESQ: Single-Stimulus Version. The traits measured by the ESQ include dependability
(integrity or probity, prudence, and responsibility), industriousness (a concern
for excellence, and seriousness, and perseverance at work), methodicalness (careful
attention to detail), agreeableness (desire to please others), extraversion (preference
for social activity), and independence (willingness to make decisions without assistance).
The Dependability scale was developed using items drawn from the Responsibility
and Risk Taking scales of the Jackson Personality Inventory –Revised (JPI–R;
Jackson, 1994). The JPI–R was developed using a large item pool (more than 2,000
items) and elaborate statistical procedures. The Responsibility and Risk Taking scales
have been found to be substantially correlated with other integrity measures (Mikulay
&Goffin, 1998), with illegal substance use, relevant peer ratings, and experimental and
self-reported measures of counterproductive behavior (Ashton, 1998; Mikulay &
Goffin, 1998).Aset of 120 additional items from the integrity domain were written and
selected for the ESQ Dependability scale on the basis of empirical data bearing on internal
consistency, self-reported counterproductive work behavior, and the differentiation
of incarcerated and nonincarcerated persons. The Dependability scale used in this
study contained 17 items administered with a 7-point response scale, ranging from
1(strongly disagree) to 4(neutral) to 7(strongly agree).
Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. The criterion measure used in this
study is the Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (Ashton, 1998), which contains
eight items related to workplace delinquency. Response options for items from this
questionnaire used a 6-point scale, with the higher numbers representing a greater
frequency of delinquent acts. Ashton (1998) suggested that response style variance
in delinquency scales may be reduced by the use of response categories that contain
specific numerical estimates rather than subjective judgments of frequency, (e.g.,
rarely, sometimes, often).
Participants were asked to answer the questionnaire frankly, giving their best
estimate of the total number of various delinquent behaviors they had committed.
The types of work-related delinquent behaviors measured in this questionnaire included
“absenteeism, lateness, alcohol use or influence, safety violations,
goldbricking (i.e., avoiding work during paid time), theft, giving…free goods or
services to friends or relatives, and vandalism or sabotage” (Ashton, 1998, p. 292).
To ensure frank and accurate responses, participants were assured of complete
confidentiality and instructed not to place their names on the questionnaire.
Procedure
Respondents each completed the personality questionnaire under two instructional
conditions—first, the straight-take condition, and then the job application condi-
376 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
tion. In the straight-take condition, participants were instructed to answer as
frankly as possible; this condition was intended to serve as a basis for comparison
with the job applicant trial. In the subsequent job applicant trial they were asked to
answer the items as if they were trying to make a good impression to better their
chances of gaining a job they really wanted. Both the straight-take and the job applicant
trials preceded the modified version of the Workplace Behavior Questionnaire.
Norman (1967) recommended that, in repeated-measures studies using personality
tests, the experimental condition should follow the control condition to
limit carryover effects.
Results
Work Experience
The median number of hours worked per week by respondents was 10 to 14 hr during
the school year and 30 to 39 hr during the summer.
Dependability Scale
Respondents produced higher mean scores for the single-stimulus Dependability
items under the job application condition than under the straight-take condition (M
= 82.5, SD = 13.9 vs. M = 70.9, SD = 12.4), t(83) = 8.30, p < .001. In terms of the
straight-take distribution, participants scored .95 SD higher under the job application
condition than under the straight-take condition. This result indicated that
scores were substantially affected by instructing the participants to respond as if applying
for a job. In terms of the direction of score shifts from straight-take to job application
conditions, 83% of participants scored higher under the job application
condition than under the straight-take condition, 5% of the participants had no difference
in scores, and only 12% scored higher under the straight-take condition
than under the job application condition.
Internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s 〈) for the Dependability
scale were .70 and .79 under the straight-take and job application conditions,
respectively. The correlation between the Dependability scores of the two
conditions was .53.
Delinquency Criteria
The eight-item Workplace Behavior Questionnaire had a mean score of 16.7 (SD
= 6.6). Scores ranged from 8 to 40 on this scale, on which the possible range
was 8 to 48. The reliability coefficient was .75, aggregating across all types of
counterproductive work behavior.
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 377
Correlations
Table 1 shows the correlation of the Dependability scale scores with the Workplace
Behavior Questionnaire. Lack of dependability was significantly correlated with
self-reported past workplace counterproductivity for the straight-take condition (r
= .48, p < .001), but not for the job-application condition (r = .18, ns). The difference
in the correlations between the two conditions was significant (z = 3.00, p <
.001).
STUDY 2: DOES A FORCED-CHOICE
FORMAT REDUCE FAKING?
In the second study, the same Dependability items used in the first study were administered,
but in a forced-choice format using quartets of items. This was intended
to provide a comparison of the fakeability of the single-stimulus and forced-choice
item formats.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were 106 undergraduate students (36 men and 70
women) with a median age of 19 years, all of whom reported that they had an employment
history.
Materials
ESQ: Forced-Choice. Personality measures consisted of the same item
stems as in Study 1. The method employed to develop forced-choice items was first
378 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
TABLE 1
Reliability and Correlations With Self-Reported Counterproductive Behavior of
Single-Stimulus Dependability Scale
Condition Reliability Correlation
Straight-take .70 .48*
Job-application .79 .18
Note. N = 84. Correlations between the dependability and counterproductive behavior have been
reflected.
*p < .001.
to identify, for each item, statistical indexes of attractiveness or desirability. Two
such indexes were employed: (a) the actual mean item endorsement proportions
from a sample of 3,760 job applicants, and (b) desirability scale values based on the
mean rating of 20 judges who estimated, using a 7-point scale, the desirability of the
item in the context of a job applicant motivated to make a good impression. Items
were placed in dyads using a computer program designed to match items from different
scales with very similar endorsement frequencies and desirability scale values.
High-desirability item dyads were then combined randomly with the item
dyads of low desirability to form quartets of items. These item quartets were then
randomly distributed throughout the test with the restriction that no two quartets
representing the same combination of traits would follow each other.
Each respondent was instructed to choose from each quartet the item member
most characteristic and the item member least characteristic of him or her. Item
members were scored +1 if the participant answered that is was most characteristic
and –1 if the participant answered that it was least characteristic. Item members
not selected as being most or least characteristic were scored as 0 for their scale.
Thus, each quartet would contain one +1 score, one –1 score, and two 0 scores,
with reverse-keyed items being appropriately reflected.
Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. The criterion items and the instructions
were the same as those in Study 1. The participants were assured of complete
confidentiality and instructed not to place their names on the questionnaires.
Procedure
Respondents completed the ESQ under straight-take and job application sets consecutively,
and then completed the Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. The instructions
and order of the questionnaires were the same as in Study 1.
Results
Work Experience
The median number of hours worked per week by respondents was 10 to 14 hr during
the school year and 30 to 39 hr during the summer.
Dependability Scale
Although mean scores for Dependability were higher under job applicant conditions
for the forced-choice format (M= 2.9, SD = 3.6 vs.M= 1.5, SD = 4.4), t(105) =
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 379
–3.39, p < .01, these differences were much smaller than those obtained for the single-
stimulus format used in Study 1. In terms of the straight-take distribution, the
average participant scored .32 SD higher under the job application condition than
under the straight-take condition, a value only about one third as large as that found
for the single-stimulus scales in Study 1 (Figure 1). In terms of the direction of score
shifts for individual respondents, 62% of participants scored higher on the Dependability
scale under the job application condition than under the straight-take condition.
Ten percent of the participants had no difference in scores, and 28% scored
higher under the straight-take condition than under the job application condition.
Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s 〈) were .69 and .55 for the straight-take
and job application conditions, respectively. Despite the moderate reliabilities,
the correlation between the Dependability scale scores in the two conditions was
.56. (Of course, lengthening the 17-item forced-choice Dependability scale would
increase reliability.)
Delinquency Criteria
The Workplace Behavior Questionnaire had a mean score of 15.9 (SD = 6.9). The
reliability coefficient was .76.
380 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
FIGURE 1 Mean increases in single-stimulus and forced-choice Dependability scale scores
from straight-take to job applicant conditions.
Correlations of Forced-Choice Dependability Scale
Table 2 presents correlations between low dependability and self-reported past
counterproductive behaviors in the workplace. Lack of dependability correlated
with self-reported past counterproductive behaviors in the workplace (see Table 2).
Workplace Behavior Questionnaire scores were significantly negatively correlated
with both the straight-take (r =.41, p < .001) and job application (r = .36, p < .001)
measures of (reflected) dependability. The difference in the correlations between
the two conditions was not significant (z = 0.60, ns).
Thus, the forced-choice Dependability scale’s correlations were not appreciably
different for the job application and straight-take conditions. The criterion cor-
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 381
FIGURE 2 Correlations of single-stimulus and forced-choice Dependability scales with a
workplace delinquency criterion under straight-take and job applicant conditions.
TABLE 2
Reliability and Correlations With Self-Reported Counterproductive
Behaviors of Forced-Choice Dependability Scale
Condition Reliability Correlation
Straight-take .69 .41*
Job-application .55 .36*
Note. N = 106. Correlations between the dependability and counterproductive behavior have been
reflected.
*p < .001.
relations remained statistically significant and moderately strong even under job
application instructions. This is a markedly different result from that obtained in
Study 1, in which the single-stimulus Dependability scale showed much lower correlations
in the job application condition than in the straight-take condition (see
Figure 2).
DISCUSSION
Two important differences were found between the single-stimulus and the
forced-choice administrations of the Dependability items. First, single-stimulus
Dependability scores showed a considerably larger mean difference between the
straight-take and the job application conditions than did the forced-choice Dependability
measure. Second, for the single-stimulus administration of the items, the
Dependability scale had considerably lower criterion correlations in the job application
condition than in the straight-take condition, but under forced-choice administration,
the correlations were similar across the two conditions. Both of these
results—the smaller difference in the mean shifts and the minimal decrease in criterion
correlations—indicate a lower susceptibility to faking for the forced-choice
format than for the single-stimulus format. The results of our study thus support the
findings of Christiansen et al. (1998), and even show a somewhat greater superiority
of forced-choice scales over single-stimulus scales than found in their study.
Our results extend the findings of those of Christiansen et al. to a quartet version of
the forced-choice format, to personality-based integrity tests, and, most important,
to workplace delinquency.
Faking poses major problems for the use of personality tests in personnel selection,
and there are accordingly important benefits to reducing faking. As we have
demonstrated, respondents under simulated job applicant conditions using traditional
single-stimulus items yield scores that are unrealistically high and are
poorly correlated with reported workplace delinquency. Far from representing a
red herring (Ones et al., 1996), faking can have dramatic effects on hiring decisions
(see also Rossé, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998) and on correlations with reported
counterproductive behavior.
Our results are consistent with those of Douglas, McDaniel, and Snell (1996),
who administered personality and biodata questionnaires under faking and
straight-take conditions to randomly assigned samples of university students, for
whom job performance data from previous employers was also obtained. Douglas
et al. found that respondents who faked showed substantially higher personality
and biodata scores than did nonfakers. Consistent with our findings, scale
reliabilities were higher in the faking condition. Furthermore, Douglas et al. found
that noncognitive measures administered under faking conditions showed substantial
decrement in validity when compared with those administered under
382 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
straight-take conditions. Unlike the instructions in the study reported here, which
asked respondents to answer the personality questionnaire as if they were applying
for a job that they really wanted, Douglas et al. instructed respondents to “make as
favorable impression as possible … we are not interested in your true opinion,
rather we would like you to identify the most socially desirable response for each
question” (p. 3). From the substantial body of research on social desirability judgments
of personality items, it is well known that such instructions yield a strong
group consensus and level individual differences. Accordingly, it would be useful
to replicate the Douglas et al. study with less extreme instructions more typical of
those given to job candidates. Nevertheless, the Douglas et al. results are important
because they bear on the most important reason for administering noncognitive
measures, namely, their impact on the validity of job selection decisions.
In addition to improved correlations, a second benefit to reducing the role of
faking in job selection testing is an ethical one. Many potential users of employee
tests decline to utilize them because they believe that it is manifestly unfair to
make job offers to fakers and deny job opportunities to more honest respondents.
Rossé et al. (1998) found statistical support that faking among applicants can affect
who is hired.
A third benefit to reducing the role of faking, one not addressed directly in our
studies but important, is that it permits a more differentiated basis for the use of
personality scales in hiring (Sackett & Wanek, 1996). Thus, if a particular personality-
oriented job analysis revealed that a certain job required persons with a pattern
of distinct traits, a measure that contained only one factor could not provide all
of the relevant information for a decision. The multiple correlation is at a maximum
when all valid predictors are minimally intercorrelated. A one-factor solution,
like that obtained by Ellingson et al. (1999) when respondents faked, will not
yield the same level of predictive accuracy as when there are a number of distinct
valid predictors (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson,
1999).
Our results are based on a single measure of personality as it relates to self-reported
measures of counterproductive behavior. Sometimes, however, profile
measures of personality are used for personnel screening. Usually particular scales
on a profile measure are aggregated in a weighted or unweighted composite based
on previous criterion validity studies and a cut score is applied. In such a circumstance
the profile measure is susceptible to faking to the extent that the selected
scales individually are susceptible to faking. If a linear composite is employed, one
might view the linear composite as a single predictor scale and evaluate the effects
of faking on score levels and on validity. Given this interpretation, the differences
between single measures and profile measures from an analytical perspective are
minimal; they are very similar in terms of their implications for faking. There is,
however, a widespread belief among practitioners that the use of heterogeneous
item and scale content in a personality measure makes faking more difficult. This
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 383
is plausible, but we know of no studies in selection contexts that have investigated
this issue.
Another potential approach to selection, one that departs from the traditional
linear regression model, is a profile-matching procedure. This involves identifying
the personality profile of a set of successful or all incumbents and matching the
profile of an applicant to that of the incumbents. Although this procedure is used
widely in the area of vocational interest measurement, with substantial evidence
for validity in terms of classification studies, it has rarely been used in personnel
selection, and its validity has been even more rarely reported in the published literature.
The extent to which such an alternative use of personality profiles might be
less susceptible to faking, and whether or not such a measure might retain its validity
under job selection administration conditions, remain open questions. There
are data, however, indicating that judges are quite accurate in identifying the profile
of different occupational groups in vocational interest measurement (Jackson,
2000, pp. 114–118). This raises the possibility that applicants could simulate the
profile of successful incumbents, but the issue is not settled.
It should be recognized that persons simulating the role of job applicants will
not necessarily yield the same results as will real job applicants. Real job applicants
might fake more or less than simulators and might produce higher or lower
correlations with counterproductive behavior. Whether the motivational conditions
for selection testing differ greatly from those of research testing on incumbents
also is an open question. Indeed, the conditions under which incumbent
research takes place vary widely, from, for example, questionnaires administered
by external researchers with anonymity for testees, to those administered by organizational
personnel in which respondents are identified. A delineation of the impact
on scores and validity of these varying conditions would be useful in deciding
on how much relevance meta-analyses of incumbent personality test validity have
for inferring the validity of tests used for personnel selection.
Our results offer a perspective on findings from a series of meta-analyses of
personality and job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997;
Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). These studies, in general, did not distinguish
between the conditions of testing, whether under applicant or nonapplicant motivational
conditions. Because of the large numbers of respondents in nonapplicant
studies, these data carried considerable weight in meta-analyses, which have been
interpreted as having an important bearing on the use of personality measures in
selection. However, our data suggest that testing data gathered from respondents
completing personality measures for reasons other than personnel selection have
limited bearing on their use for job applicants, in the absence of convincing data to
the contrary.
The susceptibility to faking found for the measures used in this study is especially
remarkable when one considers the extraordinary methods used in scale
construction designed to suppress the role of item desirability in responses to the
384 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
items. Jackson (1970, 1994) outlined these procedures in detail; they include the
development of large item pools and the use of multivariate statistical procedures
designed to maximize item–scale correlations, minimizing relations with desirability
and extraneous content. For measures not subjected to similar methods of
scale development, one might reasonably expect more extreme dissimulation effects.
Their emergence with scales constructed using methods designed to suppress
desirability attests to the strong motivation that job applicants have to
manage impressions.
It is well known that rational job selection procedures can have considerable
economic benefits (Schmidt & Hunter, 1981) and that, in particular, the reduction
of such counterproductive behavior as theft, loafing, and job-related substance
abuse impacts substantially on organizational effectiveness and profitability. It is
also well known that the utility of selection decisions is a function among other
things of the effectiveness of the selection procedures used. Recently, much attention
in the study of personality and job performance has focused on the validity of
various traditional single-stimulus types of personality measures. Our results suggest
an alternative: the value of studying and identifying the means for improving
testing measures by recognizing and controlling for the motivated distortion that
job applicants frequently demonstrate.
It would be desirable to investigate further the impact of faking on the prediction
of counterproductive workplace behavior, particularly using other criterion
measures in addition to those based on self-report. However, this is not easy. First,
any assessment of personality sponsored by an organization, even if presented as
nonevaluative, is likely to elicit some degree of bias in self-presentation. Second,
it is widely recognized that only a small percentage of instances of serious counterproductive
behavior, such as theft, are observed; when they are, incumbents are
usually terminated, consequently becoming unavailable for further personality
assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A forced-choice personality measure of integrity yields only about one third
of the mean shift in the desirable direction under job applicant instructions than
does the same measure administered using a single-stimulus format.Asingle-stimulus
personality questionnaire shows a substantial mean shift, nearly a full standard
deviation, from straight-take to job application conditions.
2. A traditional single-stimulus personality-based measure designed to predict
potential workplace counterproductive behavior is less effective at identifying
self-reported workplace delinquency when administered with instructions for
the participant to respond as if applying for a job. When the same items are organized
into a properly developed forced-choice format, the forced-choice format
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 385
maintains its correlation with reported workplace delinquency under job applicant
conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Richard D. Goffin and Sampo V. Paunonen for their helpful advice.
REFERENCES
Ash, P. (1971). Screening employment applicants for attitudes toward theft. Journal of Applied Psychology,
55, 161–164.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 289–303.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the
predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272.
Betts, G. L. (1947). The detection of incipient army criminals. Science, 103, 93–96.
Christiansen, N. D., Edelstein, S.,&Fleming, B. (1998, April). Reconsidering forced-choice formats for
applicant personality assessment. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for
faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology,
47, 847–860.
Conger, A. J., & Jackson, D. N. (1972). Suppressor variables, prediction, and the interpretation of psychological
relationships. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 579–599.
Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A.,&Snell, A. F. (1996, August). The validity of non-cognitive measures
decays when applicants fake. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management,
Cincinnati, OH.
Dunnette, M. D., McCartney, J., Carlson, H. C.,&Kirchener, W. K. (1962). A study of faking behavior
on forced-choice self-description checklist. Personnel Psychology, 15, 13–24.
Edwards, A. L. (1954). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.NewYork: Psychological Corporation.
Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality
measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 155–166.
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual
Differences, 7, 385–400.
Furnham, A. (1990). The fakeability of the 16PF, Myers–Briggs and FIRO–B personality measures.
Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 711–716.
Graham, W. R. (1958). Social desirability and the forced-choice method. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 18, 387–401.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character: Vol. 1. Studies in deceit. New
York: Macmillan.
Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures.
Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167–184.
Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested
palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209–244.
386 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON
Houtchens, H. M., & Betts, G. L. (1947). Word portraits of Army prisoners. American Psychologist, 2,
327.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Sprelberger
(Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 61–96). New York: Academic.
Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory Research manual–Revised manual. Port Huron,
MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Jackson, D. N. (in press). Employee Selection Questionnaire manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment
Systems.
Jackson, D. N. (2000). Jackson Vocational Interest Survey manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment
Systems.
Jackson, D. N., & Payne, I. R. (1963). Personality scale for shallow affect. Psychological Reports, 13,
687–698.
Mahar, D., Cologon, J., & Duck, J. (1995). Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires
in a vocational setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 605–609.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A.,&Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity
results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43,
335–354.
Mikulay, S. M.,&Goffin, R. D. (1998). Measuring and predicting counterproductivity in the laboratory
using integrity and personality testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 768–790.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 15, 263–280.
Norman, W. T. (1967). Personality measurement, faking and detection: An assessment method for use
in personnel selection. In D. N. Jackson & S. Messick (Eds.), Problems in human assessment (pp.
374–391). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C.,&Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for
personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test
validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad
personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.
Rossé, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on
preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
634–644.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R.,&Callaghan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–526.
Sackett, P. R., & Decker, P. J. (1979). Detection of deception in the employment context: A review and
critical analysis. Personnel Psychology, 32, 487–506.
Sackett, P. R., & Harris, M. M. (1984). Honesty testing for personnel selection: A review and critique.
Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–529.
Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity,
conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel
Psychology, 49, 787–829.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings.
American Psychologist, 36, 1128–1137.
THE IMPACT OF FAKING 387
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N.,&Rothstein, M. G. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance:
A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Villanova, P. V., Benardin, J. H., Johnson, D. L., & Dahmus, S. A. (1994). The validity of a measure of
job compatibility in the prediction of job performance and turnover of motion picture theatre personnel.
Personnel Psychology, 47, 73–90.
Waters, L. K. (1965). A note of the “fakability” of forced-choice scales. Personnel Psychology, 16,
187–191.
Zavala, A. (1965). The development of the forced-choice rating technique. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
117–124.
388 JACKSON, WROBLEWSKI, ASHTON