Our Approach

Integrity tests aim to identify prospective employees who are likely to engage in theft or counterproductive work behavior. Identifying unsuitable candidates can save the employer from problems that might otherwise arise during their term of employment.

Assumptions we make

  • that persons who have “low integrity” report more dishonest behavior
  • that persons who have “low integrity” try to find reasons in order to justify such behavior
  • that persons who have “low integrity” think others more likely to commit crimes — like theft, for example. (Since people seldom sincerely declare to a prospective employer their past deviance, the “integrity” testers adopted an indirect approach: letting the work-candidates talk about what they think of the deviance of other people, considered in general, as a written answer demanded by the questions of the “integrity test”.)
  • that persons who have “low integrity” exhibitimpulsive behavior
  • that persons who have “low integrity” tend to think that society should severely punish deviant behavior (Specifically, “integrity tests” assume that people who have a history of deviance report within such tests that they support harsher measures applied to the deviance exhibited by other people.)


The result of different dimensions of this test can be combined to give a comparative representation of the overall score in percentage of integrity of the candidate.

Low Integrity (0% - 35%) 0
Average Integrity (36% - 70%) 0
High Integrity (70% - 100%) 0

Factors that may affect workplace behaviour

  1. : “. . . employees who felt that their employers were dishonest, unfair, and uncaring about their workers were significantly more involved in theft and other forms of workplace deviance.” Richard D. Hollinger, op. , the Use of Integrity test for Pre-Employment Screening by Barry Leonard (ed) 1990 P.23
  2. there appears to be widespread agreement that it is useful to discuss theft and workplace deviance with reference to situational as well as individual variables
  3. “. . . predisposition to excusing or rationalizing theft behavior . . . ,” Richard D. Hollinger, op. , the Use of Integrity test for Pre-Employment Screening by Barry Leonard (ed) 1990P.41
  4. sociological factors that can enrich the discussion of workplace deviance have also been identified. Ibid P.21 & R C Hollinger and J P Clark, “Deterence in the workplace: Perceived Severity, Perceived Certainty, and employee theft” Social Forces Vol 62, 1983 P 398-418
  5. Camara and Schneider (1994) cite the work by the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1990), which concluded that 95.6% of people who fail integrity tests are wrongly classified as dishonest
  6. John F. Covaleskie University of Oklahoma, attributed giving “no answer as a lack of Integrity. (PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION 2011 Robert Kunzman, editor © 2011 Philosophy of Education Society Urbana, Illinois)
  7. Raine and Venables demonstrated that the responses given by many adolescents who later went on to commit acts of anti-social delinquency were attenuated in amplitude compared to those adolescents who were not associated with acts of delinquency