Integrity tests predict counterproductive work behaviors and job performance well: comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012)

Examination of the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012) meta-analysis reveals a number of problems. They meta-analyzed a partial database of integrity test validities. An examination of their coded database revealed that measures coded as integrity tests and meta-analyzed as such often included scales that are not in fact integrity tests. In addition, there were important deficiencies in their analytic approach relating to application of range restriction corrections and identification of moderators. We found the absence of fully hierarchical moderator analyses to be a serious weakness. We also explain why empirical comparisons between test publishers versus non-publishers cannot unambiguously lead to inferences of bias, as alternate explanations are possible, even likely. In light of the problems identified, it appears that the conclusions about integrity test validity drawn by Van Iddekinge et al. cannot be considered accurate or reliable.     

Anchor effects in decision making can be reduced by the interaction between goal monitoring and the level of the decision maker’s executive functions

Models of decision making postulate that interactions between contextual conditions and characteristics of the decision maker determine decision-making performance. We tested this assumption by using a possible positive contextual influence (goals) and a possible negative contextual influence (anchor) in a risky decision-making task (Game of Dice Task, GDT). In this task, making advantageous choices is well known to be closely related to a specific decision maker variable: the individual level of executive functions. One hundred subjects played the GDT in one of four conditions: with self-set goal for final balance (n?=?25), with presentation of an anchor (a fictitious Top 10 list, showing high gains of other participants; n?=?25), with anchor and goal definition (n?=?25), and with neither anchor nor goal setting (n?=?25). Subjects in the conditions with anchor made more risky decisions irrespective of the negative feedback, but this anchor effect was influenced by goal monitoring and moderated by the level of the subjects' executive functions. The findings imply that impacts of situational influences on decision making as they frequently occur in real life depend upon the individual's cognitive abilities. Anchor effects can be overcome by subjects with good cognitive abilities.     

Memory for emotional words in sentences: the importance of emotional contrast

Numerous researchers have demonstrated that emotional words are remembered better than neutral words. However, the effect has been attributed to factors other than emotion because it is somewhat fragile and influenced by variables such as the experimental designs employed. To investigate the role of emotion per se in memory for emotional words, negative-affect but low arousal emotional words were placed in sentence contexts that either activated high emotional meanings of the words (Shane died in his car last night.), or low emotional meanings of the words (Shane's old car died last night). The high-emotional contexts led to better memory than the low-emotional contexts, but only in mixed lists of emotional and neutral words. Additionally, the traditional emotional memory effect was also limited to mixed lists. The results are consistent with the idea that an emotional contrast is responsible for the emotional memory effect with low arousal emotional words.     

Early information processing biases in social anxiety

Considerable controversy persists regarding the nature of threat-related attention biases in social anxiety. Previous studies have not considered how variations in the temporal and energetic dimensions of affective stimulus delivery interact with anxiety-related individual differences to predict biased attention. We administered a visual dot-probe task, using faces that varied in affective intensity (mild, moderate, strong) and presentation rate (100, 500, 1,250 ms) to a selected sample. The high, compared to the low, socially anxious group showed vigilance towards angry faces and emotionally ambiguous faces more generally during rapid (100 ms) presentations. By 1,250 ms, there was only a non-specific motor slowing associated with angry faces in the high socially anxious group. Findings suggest the importance of considering both chronometric and energetic dimensions of affective stimuli when examining anxiety-related attention biases. Future studies should consider using designs that more closely replicate aspects of real-world interaction to study processing biases in socially anxious populations.     

Content Validity and Cognitive Tests: Response to Kehoe (), Ployhart (), and Sackett ()

The most important fact emerging from the combination of my article and the three commentaries is the consensus judgment that content validity is appropriate scientifically and professionally for use with tests of specific cognitive skills used in job performance. This is important because the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures have typically been interpreted as not permitting such usage, and this is particularly the case in the interpretation given to the Guidelines by federal government enforcement agencies. Although the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Principles and the Standards do not prohibit such usage, many industrial–organizational psychologists believe that it is not professionally or scientifically appropriate to employ content validity methods with cognitive measures. The hope is that this series will convince them otherwise. On this point, all four authors in the series are in agreement. The major disagreement among us concerns whether specific cognitive skills used in content valid tests must be considered constructs or not. My position, and apparently that of Kehoe, is that they need not be so considered. I argue that constructs must be invoked only in the context of a substantive theory. Sackett and Ployhart, on the other hand, argue that all measures taken on people must be viewed as constructs, regardless of whether any theoretical propositions and assumptions are involved. In this response, I present reasons why this need not be the case.     

An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: relating authoritarianism and anomia

Panel studies, in which the same subjects are repeatedly observed at multiple time points, are among the most popular longitudinal designs in psychology. Meanwhile, there exists a wide range of different methods to analyze such data, with autoregressive and cross-lagged models being 2 of the most well known representatives. Unfortunately, in these models time is only considered implicitly, making it difficult to account for unequally spaced measurement occasions or to compare parameter estimates across studies that are based on different time intervals. Stochastic differential equations offer a solution to this problem by relating the discrete time model to its underlying model in continuous time. It is the goal of the present article to introduce this approach to a broader psychological audience. A step-by-step review of the relationship between discrete and continuous time modeling is provided, and we demonstrate how continuous time parameters can be obtained via structural equation modeling. An empirical example on the relationship between authoritarianism and anomia is used to illustrate the approach.     

"An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia": Correction to Voelkle, Oud, Davidov, and Schmidt (2012)

Reports an error in "An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia" by Manuel C. Voelkle, Johan H. L. Oud, Eldad Davidov and Peter Schmidt (Psychological Methods, 2012[Jun], Vol 17[2], 176-192). The supplemental materials link was missing. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2012-09124-001.) Panel studies, in which the same subjects are repeatedly observed at multiple time points, are among the most popular longitudinal designs in psychology. Meanwhile, there exists a wide range of different methods to analyze such data, with autoregressive and cross-lagged models being 2 of the most well known representatives. Unfortunately, in these models time is only considered implicitly, making it difficult to account for unequally spaced measurement occasions or to compare parameter estimates across studies that are based on different time intervals. Stochastic differential equations offer a solution to this problem by relating the discrete time model to its underlying model in continuous time. It is the goal of the present article to introduce this approach to a broader psychological audience. A step-by-step review of the relationship between discrete and continuous time modeling is provided, and we demonstrate how continuous time parameters can be obtained via structural equation modeling. An empirical example on the relationship between authoritarianism and anomia is used to illustrate the approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).