Measurement Issues Associated With Conditional Reasoning Tests: Indirect Measurement and Test Faking

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The purpose of the study
The argument in the study
Findings of the research
Relating the outcomes of the study to the workplace
How the study can be integrated in the employee selection process
Weakness of using only using self-report personality
Reference

The purpose of the study

This is a comprehensive study of the psychical attributes of behavior in organizations. The study aims at exploring a new methodology that has been developed to aid in analyzing and assessing the hidden motives behind behavioral patterns of organizational employees. According to the authors of the article, Conditional Reasoning Tests are favorable since they reduce cognitive biases in the measurement of hidden motives.

The biases are associated with the ancient self-report surveys that have been used for an extended period. Conditional Reasoning Tests utilize indirect measurements that help to reduce the chances of a person knowing that his or her personality is being subjected to a test. According to the authors of the article, Conditional Reasoning Tests are used to measure an attribute of organizational behavior that is critical, yet it has been sidelined for a long time by corporate managers.

While CRTs avoid measuring the mental capabilities of employees in organizations, they are designed to unearth the motivations behind certain behaviors that are exhibited by organizational employees. Such behaviors are founded in the personalities of individuals and steer the kind of responses and actions that they take in the organization (LeBreton et al., 2007).

LeBreton et al. (2007) seek to ascertain that Conditional Reasoning Tests are subjected to measurement issues that are bound to affect the manner in which the tests are portrayed by the respondents. Therefore, the study is split into three tests that are aimed at exploring all the measurement issues that come with CRTs.

The first study focused on the essence of sticking to indirect assessments in the administration of CRTs. The second study explored the possibility of result faking by the respondents when the assessment purpose was withheld. The third study focused on the comparison of tests for aggression in CRTs.

The argument in the study

As observed in the preceding section, the researchers in this article aimed at exploring the seemingly newer method of determining the behavioral patterns of employees by factoring the relative test of personality without the knowledge of the respondents or the employees. The authors dwell on two main perspectives of applying the Conditional Reasoning Tests in organizations.

These are the relevance of holding to indirect assessments while applying the tests and the implication of withholding assessment tests on the nature and validity of responses that are given by the respondents. The authors also try to bring out the essence of utilizing the Conditional Reasoning Tests in organizations, as well as the issue of managing impression in organizations as it comes out in traditional methods of managing behaviors in organizations like self-report surveys.

An exploration of literature by the employees indicates tendencies by the employees to justify their behaviors even when such behaviors appear to be irrational to other people (LeBreton et al., 2007). According to the authors, the variation in the behaviors of individuals has a profound effect on the work practices within organizations. This reiterates the need to determine the causative factors for the conduct of employees.

This is what is explored by the authors in the article. Hidden elements of individual personalities play a critical role in shaping the nature of actions and interactions of people in organizations. The hidden elements of personality can be effectively brought out through the application of Conditional Reasoning Tests as opposed to the use of self-report surveys, which seem overrated in the contemporary psychological organizations (LeBreton et al., 2007).

Findings of the research

The structuring of the research into different parts helped to ascertain the varied degrees of the validity of the application of CRTs in determining the motivational factors behind certain behaviors. The findings of the research point to the fact that Conditional Reasoning Tests are more efficient that self-report surveys as they depict the influence of personalities of individuals on latent motives behind their behaviors.

Individual reasoning, which has a profound impact on the behavior of an individual, is shaped by the inward personality of the individual depicted by the level of aggression. Individuals with higher levels of aggression portray behaviors that are bound to be harmful to other employees, yet they still seek to rationalize the set of behaviors that they represent.

Such individuals are called justifiers who are identified through the deployment of the Justification of Aggression Scale used in CRTs. The findings indicate that there is no relationship between the cognitive ability of an individual and the conditional reasoning test (LeBreton et al., 2007).

LeBreton et al. (2007) observe that the disclosure of the assessments’ purpose in CRTs results in the faking of responses and it is undesirable in identifying the underlying motives for behavior. The study indicates that the nature of response to self-personality survey reports by job seekers and the incumbent employees is not isomorphic to the character of employees.

Employees are bound to fake their behavior when they learn of the real purpose of the CRTs. Faking is highly minimized in CRTs when indirect measurement is embraced. This makes the CRTs attain the attribute of identifying the reasons behind certain behaviors and the modalities of controlling such actions.

Relating the outcomes of the study to the workplace

The contemporary workplace is confronted with a lot of issues, most of which emanate from the behavior of employees in organizations. This study explores a founded model of identifying the psychological motivators of the actions of people in organizations. Organizational behavior is a crucial attribute of organizational performance that implies the essence of understanding the behavior of employees by corporate managers.

The employees are considered to be critical resources in the discharge of organizational practices, thus identifying and moderating the behaviors of employees is a crucial determiner of the mood of a given workplace. Understanding the personality of employees through the deployment of Conditional Reasoning Tests can help in understanding the characters of employees.

This determines the individual and interactive behavior of organizational employees. This means that this study is useful to organizational managers, especially the managers who deal with human resource development (LeBreton et al. 2007).

How the study can be integrated in the employee selection process

Employers continuously seek employees who can match certain tasks in organizations. It is, therefore, important to determine the employees who are best suitable to perform given tasks if an organization wants to attain a desirable level of performance. The process of recruitment is important in any organization since it determines the nature of employees who are captured by an organization.

This study depicts a model that can be used to ascertain the personality of recruits, as described in the recruitment process in organizations. Most employees have a tendency of hiding specific attributes of behavior when seeking employment opportunities in organizations. In such cases, an organization may be predisposed to the practice of such employees later.

To avoid such a situation, Conditional Reasoning Tests can be applied as a way of developing a platform on which the behavior of employees can be determined by the managers of the company. Individuals who are highly aggressive can be assigned to tasks that match such level of aggression as determined by the CRTs.

Continuous assessment of the personality of employees is critical because contemporary organizations exhibit a high level of dynamism that may sway the behavior of employees. Personality profiles for given sets of jobs can be easily set by basing on the findings of this research. With conditional reasoning tests, the faking personality test results are highly reduced (LeBreton et al., 2007).

Weakness of using only using self-report personality

This research attempts to exhibit the validity of utilizing Conditional Reasoning Tests as opposed to the use of self-report personality, which is considered to be inefficient in determining the personality of individuals and their influence on underlying motives and behaviors. The explicit use of self-reports is subjected to some weaknesses that raise the rate of faking results in personality tests.

Self-report surveys directly measure the personality attributes of individuals; thus, the level of faking of personality results is quite high. Self-report personality tests have been found to portray results that do not reflect the real personalities of individuals, thereby predisposing organizations to fake characters.

Feelings, thoughts, motives and attitudes of individuals tend to be hidden by the individuals who seek to protect some attributes of their behavior. Specific self-report personality tests may take a relatively long time, resulting in the loss of interest and tiredness on the side of the employees and causing them to give incorrect responses. Therefore, it can be argued that such tests are subjected to either good faking or bad faking (LeBreton et al., 2007).

Reference

LeBreton, J. M. et al. (2007). Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: indirect measurement and test faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 1-16.

Click Here To Order Now!