Applicant Risk Profiler Test Manual PDF
Applicant Risk Profiler Test Manual PDF
Profiler
A.R.P.
Administrators Manual
2011 EDI
#T0067DL
Table of Contents
Assessment Products: An Investment in Your Companys Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Use of Assessment Products as Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legal Aspects of Assessment Use and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Integrity Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Attendance Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Inappropriate Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Validity Study #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Validity Study #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Validity Study #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Validity Study #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Validity Study #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Validity Study #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Validity Study #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
To ensure that you are obtaining the full benefits available to you from the use of
HRAssessments products, please read all information contained in this manual carefully.
By using this assessment product, you are acknowledging that you have read and understand
the general guidelines provided in this manual, and that if you have any specific questions,
you have referred them to a competent testing and/or legal expert for advice. The test
developer and publisher do not assume liability for any unlawful use of this product.
The test developer and publisher do not assume any responsibility for the employers use of this test or any decision the
employer makes which may violate local, state or federal law. By selling this test, the publisher is not giving legal advice.
While HRAssessments are designed to help predict various aspects of human behavior, score results are presented in terms
of probabilities. False Positives and False Negatives are expected. EDI and the test developer are not liable for test taker,
applicant or employee behaviors.
SA
SD
As you read each statement, please think of how it applies to you during your day-to-day
working situations. Please CIRCLE the scale rating that best defines the degree to which
you agree or disagree with each statement.
Do you have any questions?
This questionnaire contains 80 statements similar to the one presented above. There is no
set time limit for completing this questionnaire, so please take your time and answer each
question carefully and honestly. You should use a ballpoint pen when completing the
questionnaire. If you make a mistake, DO NOT ERASE your mark. Draw an X over your
first answer, then CIRCLE the desired response. Please make sure you answer every question.
The examiner will not answer any questions once you have started.
Task
A.R.P. Scale
Integrity
Attendance
As a general guideline for compliance with federal discrimination and disability laws, test
users should not subject test takers to any adverse employment decision based on a test
result, unless the test result and other factors considered in the decision-making process
reveal that the person does not possess qualifications that are crucial or essential to the job
in question. To illustrate, if a test taker performs poorly on a test section designed to measure
inspection skills, and inspection skills are not crucial or essential to the position for which
the test taker is being considered, the test result should not serve as a basis for excluding the
test taker from the position. Similarly, if a test result indicates that a test taker is unable to
perform certain physical tasks that are not crucial or essential to the job position at issue, the
test taker should not be excluded from that position on the basis of the test result.1 Test users
can avoid this type of scenario altogether by carefully identifying the tasks that are essential
to the job position at issue, and administering only those tests or test sections that are
appropriate and relevant to the position's requirements.
Test sections measuring proficiency in the English language also should be administered
in accordance with these principles. Thus, if spelling, grammar, vocabulary, or reading
comprehension skills are not essential to a job position, a test taker should not be subjected
to an adverse employment decision based on poor test results in those areas. Requiring
employees or applicants to be fluent in English may constitute national origin discrimination
in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if the requirement is not justified by business
necessity or directly related to job performance. There are some limited exceptions to this rule
for jobs involving dangerous work requiring a heightened understanding of written or verbal
safety instructions in English, or service positions that require significant communication in
English with the public. Test users should consult with an attorney before subjecting any test
taker to an adverse employment decision on the basis of English language deficiencies.
1 If the test taker's ability to perform a particular physical task is essential to the job position at issue,
the Americans with Disabilities Act may require the test user to provide certain accommodations to facilitate
the test taker's performance of the task at issue. Test users should consult an attorney before making any adverse
employment decision based upon a test taker's physical inability to perform a task measured by a test result.
Integrity Scale
The Integrity Scale measures the likelihood that an individual will steal from his/her employer
and/or will do something behind a coworkers or supervisors back which would be disapproved.
Based on the Validity Study samples presented in this manual, a score range of 15-30 indicated
that 13% of the participants engaged in stealing or deceptive behaviors at work at least once
in the past year; a score range of 31-36 indicated 53%; and a score range of 37 or more
indicated 85%.
90%
85%
80%
70%
60%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
13%
10%
0%
15-30
31-36
37+
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
15-27
4%
28-35
9%
36+
90%
80%
67%
70%
60%
50%
51%
40%
30%
20%
10%
8%
0%
15-30
31-36
37+
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
13%
3%
15-27
28-34
35+
Attendance Scale
The Attendance Scale measures the degree to which the individual is likely to be
dependable, stable, takes responsibility for his/her actions and as a result, is not likely
to have attendance problems.
Based on the Validity Study samples presented in this manual, a score range of 15-32
indicated an average supervisory rating of 4.5 on a 7.0 point rating scale; a score range
of 33-38 indicated an average rating of 5.0; and a score range of 39+ or more indicated
an average rating of 5.8
7.0
5.8
6.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.0 indicates
excellent
reliability
7.0 indicates
poor reliability
2.0
1.0
0.0
15-32
33-38
39+
The Table below summarizes A.R.P. score ranges and their associated risk levels based on the
data collected for the validity and reliability research presented in this manual.
Table 1
A.R.P. Scale Risk Level
Workplace
Workplace
Policy
Compliance Aggression
Scale
Scale
Integrity
Scale
Illegal
Drug Use
Scale
Low Risk
Score Range
15 - 30
15 - 27
15 - 30
Moderate Risk
Score Range
31 - 36
28 - 35
37+
36+
High Risk
Score Range
Attendance
Scale
Total
15 - 27
15-32
75-146
31-36
28-34
33-38
151-179
37+
35+
39+
184-375
As seen in the Validity and Reliability section of this manual, the A.R.P. is demonstrably
valid for personnel selection purposes regardless of any faking that may have occurred.
Further, the A.R.P. includes a Deception Scale that detects test takers who attempt to present
themselves in an overly favorable light, and alerts the employer to the apparent response
distortion. This Deception Scale is designed to alert you about applicants who gave answers
that varied from the norm. This is not a polygraph or lie detector test, and its results should
not be used as such.
The Deception Scale score can range from 0 to 5. The higher the score the likelier the
applicant was trying to present him/herself in a favorable light. This suggests that some of
their responses to the inventory may reflect how they want you to perceive them and not
necessarily how they truly feel. The following is a general guideline that you can use when
interpreting the Deception Scale. However, as you test more applicants and follow-up with
more targeted interview questions that offer more insight into the applicants responses,
you may develop your own interpretation guidelines.
A score range of 0-1 suggests that there is a Low Likelihood that the applicant was
attempting to fake his/her responses. The applicants responses are likely to be an accurate
representation of his/her attitudes and behaviors.
A score range of 2-3 suggests that there is a Moderate Likelihood that the applicant
attempted to fake some of his/her responses. Some of the applicants responses may not
accurately represent his/her true attitudes. However, as mentioned above, it is normal for
some applicants to attempt to present themselves in a favorable light during the interview/
testing process. This score range is not likely to invalidate the test results.
A score range of 4-5 suggests that there is a High Likelihood that the applicant attempted
to fake some of his/her responses. Some of the applicants responses may not accurately
represent his/her true attitudes. Follow-up interview questions asking the applicant to give
job or work-related examples of some of his/her overly positive responses are recommended.
Norms
Norms also provide a point of reference regarding the relative performance of each applicant/
employee when interpreting assessment scores. Norms are the average scores or distribution of
scores obtained from the study sample. These score patterns can be compared to your own
applicants/employees assessment scores to better define performance on the A.R.P.
Tables 2 to 6 on the following pages present the distribution of scores for each of the
counterproductive Scales and the Scales associated percentile rank for over 3,000 applicants
who have taken the A.R.P. Table 7 presents the same information for all scale scores combined.
The percentile rank is the percentage of applicants in the sample who obtained scores lower
than the corresponding scale score. For example, when reviewing Table 2, it can be said that
an applicant obtaining a score of 36 scored in the 85th percentile. This means the applicant
scored higher than 85% of the applicants in the norm sample.
Table 2
Integrity Scale
Scale Score
Corresponding
Percentile
49+
45-48
44
42-43
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14 or less
100
99
98
97
96
95
93
91
88
85
82
78
73
68
63
57
51
45
39
34
30
25
22
18
14
12
10
7
5
3
2
1
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
29
7.01
3,577
Table 3
Illegal Drug Use Scale
Scale Score
Corresponding
Percentile
39+
36-38
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14 or less
99
98
97
96
95
94
92
89
86
83
80
77
74
70
67
63
58
53
47
39
33
26
17
1
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
22
6.39
3,587
Table 4
Workplace Policy Compliance Scale
Scale Score
49+
47-48
45-46
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15 or less
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
Corresponding
Percentile
99
98
97
96
95
94
92
90
88
85
82
78
74
68
63
58
51
45
40
35
31
27
23
20
17
14
12
10
7
5
3
2
1
31
7.58
3,568
Table 5
Workplace Aggression Scale
Scale Score
Corresponding
Percentile
39+
37-38
35-36
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14 or less
99
98
97
95
94
93
91
89
85
81
78
75
71
67
63
57
52
46
38
29
21
14
8
1
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
23
6.17
3,558
Table 6
Attendance Scale
Scale Score
Corresponding
Percentile
49+ 99
47-48 98
45-46 97
44 96
43 95
42 94
41 91
40 90
39 88
38 85
37 82
36 78
35 74
34 68
33 63
32 58
31 52
30 45
29 41
28 35
27 31
26 27
25 23
24 20
23 17
22 15
21 12
20 10
19 7
18 6
17 3
16 2
15 or less
1
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
31
7.60
3,558
Table 7
Applicant Risk Profiler Scale
Test Score
Corresponding
Percentile
205+
198-204
193-197
187-192
185-186
181-184
179-180
176-178
174-175
172-173
170-171
169
167-168
166
165
164
163
161-162
160
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
150
149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141
140
139
138
137
136
135
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
68
67
66
65
64
63
61
60
59
57
56
55
53
52
51
Continued on next page
Table 7
Applicant Risk Profiler Scale
Test Score
Corresponding
Percentile
134
133
132
131
130
129
128
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
110-111
109
108
107
106
104-105
103
101-102
100
99
98
96-97
95
94
92-93
90-91
88-89
87
84-86
82-83
79-81
50
49
48
46
45
43
42
41
40
39
38
36
35
34
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Continued on next page
Table 7
Applicant Risk Profiler Scale
Test Score
Corresponding
Percentile
78 or less
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
136
30.31
3,362
Table 8
Deception Score Scale
Test Score
Corresponding
Percentile
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
77
52
31
16
4
Average Score
Standard Deviation
Number of Participants
3
1.46
3,672
Validity Study #1
Four of the A.R.P. Scales (Integrity, Illegal Drug Use, Workplace Policy Compliance and
Workplace Aggression) were administered to approximately 100 individuals employed
currently or within the past year (the exact number of administrations varied slightly by
Scale). The jobs held ranged from entry-level through management. These individuals were
enrolled in university-level courses and completed the assessment in return for extra-credit
points. In conjunction with the assessment, participants answered questions about their
past/present workplace behavior relative to integrity, illegal drug use, workplace policy
compliance and workplace aggression. The assessment administrations were totally anonymous
to increase the accuracy and candidness of the self-report questions. The participants professors
did not have access to the completed assessments or the self-report measures. The self-report
measures collected for each Scale are presented below.
Integrity
In the past year, how many times
have you stolen from your employer?
$_________
5 + (Specify)___________
5 + (Specify)___________
5 + (Specify)___________
Overall Integrity Rating: An overall integrity rating was obtained by adding the responses
to the self-report measures above. The dollar value response was converted to the following
5-point scale : $1-$10 = 1, $11-$25 = 2, $26-$99 = 3, $100-$499 = 4 and $500+ = 5.
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken?
5 + (Specify)_________
Overall Illegal Drug Use Rating: An overall illegal drug use rating was obtained by adding
the responses to the self-report measures above identified with an asterisk (*).
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
*In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken?
5 + (Specify)_________
Workplace Aggression
In the past year, how many heated
arguments have you had with
coworkers and/or supervisors?
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
5 + (Specify)_________
Overall Workplace Aggression Rating: An overall workplace aggression rating was obtained
by adding the responses to the self-report measures above identified with an asterisk (*).
Correlations between the four A.R.P. Scale scores and their corresponding self-report
behavioral measures were performed to determine the degree to which the A.R.P. Scales
predicted past negative workplace activities. The results of these analyses are presented
below for each A.R.P. Scale.
Table 9
Integrity Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
Coefficient Level N
p < .001
100
p < .005
99
p < .001
97
p < .001
99
p < .001
95
The results presented here suggest that the A.R.P. Integrity Scale is a strong predictor of each
of the criteria collected. That is, the higher the individuals score is on this Scale, the greater
the likelihood that the individual will engage in untrustworthy workplace behaviors.
Table 10
Illegal Drug Use
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
.35
p < .001
80
.49
p < .001
80
p< .10*
79
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .36
p< .001
78
p < .001
80
The results presented here suggest that the A.R.P. Illegal Drug Use Scale Score is a valid
predictor of illegal drug use activities in the workplace as well as non-compliance behaviors.
That is, the higher an individual scores on this Scale, the greater the likelihood that the
individual will be involved with illegal drugs in the workplace and not comply with
established policies and procedures.
Table 11
Workplace Policy Compliance Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .003
96
p < .012
97
p < .011
97
p < .002
94
p < .001
94
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .41
p < .001
94
p < .001
92
The results presented here suggest that the A.R.P. Workplace Policy Compliance Scale is
a strong predictor of each of the criteria collected. That is, the higher an individual scores
on this Scale, the greater the likelihood that the individual will not comply with company
policies and procedures.
Table 12
Workplace Aggression Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .35
100
.25
p < .015
100
.16
p < .111
100
__
__ __
p < .001
100
p < .012
100
p < .003
100
p < .011
100
p < .002
100
The results presented here suggest that the A.R.P. Workplace Aggression Scale is a strong
predictor of aggressive workplace behaviors. That is, the higher the individuals score is on
this Scale, the greater the likelihood that the individual will engage in such behaviors.
Validity Study #2
Data from an additional 62 to 100 employees (the exact number depended on the Scale
and the criteria) were collected and analyzed in order to cross-validate the original four-scale
version of the A.R.P. Cross-validation provides evidence for the generalization of results to
other individuals not included in the original study.
The study sample again included employees from a wide range of jobs. The four scale
version of the A.R.P. was administered and anonymous self-report data were collected.
Once again, validity coefficients were computed between test scores and past behavior.
The results of this analysis are presented below.
Table 13
Integrity Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .019
92
p < .002
65
p < .001
90
p < .05
90
p < .001
65
The results presented here suggest that the A.R.P. Integrity Scale is a strong predictor of each
of the criteria collected. That is, the higher the individuals score is on this Scale, the greater
the likelihood that the individual will engage in untrustworthy workplace behaviors.
Table 14
Illegal Drug Use Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
.13
p < .30
63
.29
p < .02
63
p< .001
63
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .27
p< .04
62
p < .04
63
Table 15
Workplace Policy Compliance Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .015
102
p < .016
102
p < .007
102
p < .42
102
p < .001
101
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .37
p < .001
101
p < .001
101
Table 16
Workplace Aggression Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .001
98
.43
p < .001
98
.31
p < .003
95
p < .019
97
p < .001
98
p < .001
98
p < .002
98
p < .009
97
p < .001
97
The results of the cross-validation studies for the A.R.P. Scales offer further support for each
Scales validity. The results again demonstrated that the higher the score on each Scale, the
greater the likelihood that the individual will engage in counterproductive workplace behaviors.
Correlation analyses were also conducted combining the data for Validity Studies #1 and #2.
The results are presented below. By combining the data from both studies, the predictive
power of the A.R.P. Scales is evident when you review all the correlation coefficients that
are significant at the .05 level or below.
Table 17
Integrity Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .001
192
p < .001
164
p < .001
187
p < .001
189
p < .001
160
Table 18
Illegal Drug Use Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
.47
p < .001
143
.41
p < .001
143
p< .001
142
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .31
p< .001
140
p < .001
143
Table 19
Workplace Policy Compliance Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .001
198
p < .001
199
p < .001
199
p < .005
196
p < .001
195
In the past year, how many workrelated policies have you broken? .39
p < .001
195
p < .001
193
Table 20
Workplace Aggression Scale
Behavioral Criteria
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
p < .001
198
p < .001
198
.24
p < .001
195
p < .011
197
p < .001
198
p < .001
198
p < .001
198
p < .001
197
p < .001
197
Validity Study #3
The Integrity Scale was administered to 102 employees employed in a marketing company.
The jobs held by these employees included secretary, file clerk, accounting clerk, warehouse
personnel, marketing assistant, customer service representative and telemarketing
representative. Supervisors were asked to rate the study participants on trustworthiness
and overall job performance. These two performance measures are presented below.
1. Trustworthiness
Can be trusted. Always candid.
Does not try to deceive.
Very Very
Low Level Average Level High Level
Correlation analyses were conducted between test scores and job performance ratings to
determine the degree to which the Integrity Scale of the A.R.P. predicted these aspects of job
performance. Table 21 shows the significant correlations between Scale scores and supervisor
evaluations. These correlations indicate that employees who scored high on this Scale tended
to be rated as less trustworthy by their supervisor than employees who scored lower on the Scale.
Table 21
Correlation between the Integrity Scale
and Job Performance Rating
Job Performance Dimension
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
Trustworthiness
-.22
p<.03 102
-.23
p<.03
102
Validity Study #4
The four-scale version of the A.R.P. was administered as part of a broader validation study to
56 call center representatives. These representatives were responsible for making outbound
calls and selling products and services. The supervisors of these study participants were asked
to rate them on overall job performance. Table 22 presents the results of this analysis. These
results suggest that employees who score high on the A.R.P. perform worse on the job than
those that score lower.
Table 22
Correlation between the A.R.P.
and Overall Job Performance
Job Performance Dimension
Correlation Significance
N
Coefficient Level
-.24
p<.079
56
Validity Study #5
In addition to the criterion Validity Studies discussed above, a construct validation study was
conducted for the Workplace Aggression Scale. Construct validation attempts to answer two
questions: (1) What is the psychological construct the assessment is attempting to measure? and
(2) How good is the assessment at measuring that construct?
During the administration of the A.R.P. Workplace Aggression Scale in Validity Study #1
and Validity Study #2, participants were also asked to complete the The Aggression
Questionnaire. This 29-item questionnaire scale was developed by Arnold Buss and Mark
Perry and published in 1992 primarily as a research tool. Numerous research efforts have
found the scale to be a valid measurement of four types of aggressive behaviors (i.e., physical
aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility).
Correlation analyses were performed between the Workplace Aggression Scale total score and
the total score of Buss and Perrys Aggression Questionnaire, as well as its four independent
scales. The results of these analyses are presented below.
Table 23
Correlation Coefficients between the A.R.P. Workplace
Aggression Scale Scores and Buss and Perrys
Aggression Questionnaire Score
Buss and Perrys
Aggression Questionnaire
Scale
Correlation Significance
Coefficient Level N
p < .001
202
p < .001
206
Anger .56
p < .001
204
Hostility .54
p < .001
201
p < .001
192
The significant validity coefficients obtained between the A.R.P. Aggression Scale scores
and the Aggression Questionnaire scores suggest that the Workplace Aggression Scale is
a powerful and valid measurement of various types of aggressive behaviors.
Validity Study #6
Employee turnover and poor attendance have a direct impact on organizational productivity.
With the increasing costs of employee recruitment, training and retention efforts, employee
turnover significantly affects a companys bottom line. Poor attendance also has a direct
impact on an organizations productivity.
While many factors such as organizational culture, the job market and management
effectiveness can contribute to turnover and attendance problems, research has found that
certain attitudes and personality characteristics can significantly contribute to an individuals
employment stability. For example, individuals with lenient attitudes toward poor
attendance are more likely to miss work than those that view attendance more seriously.
In addition, the personality characteristic locus of control has been linked to attendance
and turnover. An individual with an internal locus of control believes his/her actions
determine the rewards he/she gets, while those with an external locus of control are of the
belief that rewards in life are generally outside of their control. Individuals with an external
locus of control have been found to experience more work-related stress and are likely to
have less employment stability than those with an internal locus of control.
The Attendance Scale includes test items that measure attitudes towards attendance and
reliability, as well as, items that focus on the individuals locus of control. Through research,
these items have been statistically proven to predict an individuals level of attendance and
other critical work-related behaviors.
The Attendance Scale was administered to 81 employees in a variety of positions (e.g. customer
service representatives, computer programmers, clerical staff, managers) in a variety of
organizations. Supervisors were asked to rate the study participants on the following critical
job dimensions:
Very
Low Level
1. Reliability
Gets the job done
with little follow-up
or supervision.
Average Level
Very
High Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Organization
Works in an organized
and efficient manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Attendance/Punctuality
Has an excellent attendance
record. Comes to work
on time and is punctual
to meetings and other
work activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Attendance Scale was then statistically compared to the supervisors performance ratings
using correlation analysis. The Table below provides the results of this analysis.
Table 24
Correlations between the Attendance Scale and Job Performance Ratings
Work-Related
Behaviour
Sample
Employees
Validity
Coefficient
Significance
Level
Reliability .42
p < .001
81
Organization .30
p < .006
81
Attendance/Punctuality .43
p < .001
81
p < .001
81
These correlations indicate that, in general, those individuals who scored high on the
Attendance Scale demonstrated high levels of performance on the job and had significantly
higher levels of attendance than those individuals that scored lower.
Validity Study #7
In a second criterion-related validity study the Attendance Scale was administered to 80
employees. Positions included customer service representatives, telemarketing personnel,
warehouse personnel, and supervisors. Supervisors were asked to rate each employee on
the same performance dimensions included in the Study above. The results of this analysis
are presented below.
Table 25
Correlations between the Attendance Scale and Job Performance Ratings
Work-Related
Behaviour
Sample
Employees
Validity
Coefficient
Significance
Level
Reliability .23
p < .042
80
Organization .22
p < .046
80
Attendance/Punctuality .32
p < .004
80
p < .045
80
Consistent with the previous validity study, these correlations suggest that, in general, those
individuals who scored high on the Attendance Scale were rated higher on attendance and
punctuality and other important job dimensions by their supervisors than those individuals
who scored lower.
The results obtained in the Validity Studies presented here offer strong evidence that the
A.R.P. is a valid predictor of the likelihood that an individual will engage in a wide range of
negative workplace behaviors that lead to an unproductive and unsafe working environment.
Reliability
In addition to validity research, internal consistency analyses have been conducted to determine
the reliability of the five Scales that make up the A.R.P.; That is, to what degree do the items
within each Scale measure the same thing? Reliability coefficients for each Scale are presented
below. The results of this analysis strongly suggest that the items within each scale are
homogeneous in nature (i.e., they measure the same construct or work behavior).
Table 26
Reliability Coefficients for the A.R.P. Scales
A.R.P. Scale
Reliability
Coefficient
Integrity .70
Attendance .80
The research presented here strongly suggests that the A.R.P. is a valid and reliable predictor
of four counterproductive behaviors or characteristics that can lead to financial losses for
the organization, nonadherence to company policies and an unsafe working environment.
Incorporating this instrument into your selection process will add objectivity to your
decision-making process and will help you hire the best candidate for your organization.
The employer assumes full responsibility for the proper use of HRAssessments as described
in this manual. This includes establishing each scales job relatedness to the job in question
and periodically examining selection rates for minorities and non-minorities to ensure the
selection process continues to be fair and free from bias. EDI and the test developer do not
accept liability for any unlawful use of this product.
While HRAssessments were designed to help predict various aspects of human behavior, score
results are presented in terms of probabilities. False Positives and False Negatives are expected.
EDI and the test developer are not liable for test taker, applicant or employee behaviors.
If you have any questions regarding this or any other HRAssessments product,
call toll-free 800-264-0074.