Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing Injuries, Malingering, and Workers’ Compensation Costs by Implementing Overt Integrity Testing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Workers’ compensation costs are a substantial expense for employers. Given mixed results of training and job redesign interventions designed to reduce accidents leading to claims, organizations may wish to reduce these costs by screening job applicants with integrity tests. Building on theories of workplace safety and malingering (i.e., faking or exaggerating injuries for personal gain), we argue that overt integrity tests predict workers’ compensation claims through both workplace injuries and malingering. Analyses of archival data from three organizations (study 1) found screening job applicants reduced workers’ compensation claim rates and related costs, demonstrating a return on investment of 734% in one sample and 866% in another. In a three-wave survey of working adults (study 2), integrity test scores related directly to malingering, and indirectly to workplace injuries through motivation to work safely and compliance with safety rules. Analyses of three common dimensions of overt integrity tests (substance abuse, aggression, and theft) found theft scores directly related to malingering, and indirectly related to injuries through lower safety compliance. Substance abuse scores were related to higher rates of injury through lower safety motivation and compliance. Aggression scores were not related to malingering or injuries. We conclude that screening job applicants with overt integrity tests can be a cost-effective way to reduce unnecessary workplace injuries, malingering, and the related workers’ compensation claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also contacted the first authors of Sturman and Sherwyn (2009) and Oliver et al. (2012) about the possibility of analyzing their data. Unfortunately, the information required for testing our hypotheses was unavailable.

  2. The variables are (weakly) correlated because the proportion of screened applicants increased over the trial period. In the second half of the trial (January 1 to November 1, 2012), length of employment and screening were correlated at only − .07. The effect of screening in that subset of data after controlling for length of employment (odds ratio .58) was slightly stronger than that reported here (odds ratio .66).

  3. We also measured conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism using the 44-item Mini-Marker scale (Saucier, 1994). Conscientiousness and neuroticism were predictors of safety behavior in the Christian et al. (2009) meta-analysis of safety behavior, and all three traits are tapped to some degree by overt integrity tests (Ones, 1993; Wanek et al., 2003). In a series of post hoc tests, we controlled for the influence of personality on all of the endogenous safety variables, injuries, and malingering. Although there were some significant relations between personality and the substantive variables, whether these were included in the model did not change the significance of any tests of hypotheses, so we do not include them here. Complete results are available from the first author.

  4. We also conducted analyses to test the study’s hypotheses using a “pass/fail” version of the integrity test variable. In this analysis, we substituted pass/fail (using the organization’s cut score for the individual subscales) for the three separate scale scores. We found that the model fit the data well, χ2 (411, N = 199) = 575.52, p < .001, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .045 (.036, .053), SRMR = .072. Passing the test related positively to safety motivation (b = .25, p < .05), positively to safety compliance (b = .25, p < .05), and negatively to malingering (b = − .21, p < .05). Safety motivation related positively to safety compliance (b = .72, p < .05), which in turn related negatively to injuries (b = − .12, p < .05). Complete results are available from the first author.

References

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonello, K. (2015). 2015 state of the line—Analysis of workers compensation results. Boca Raton, FL: National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). IBM SPSS Amos 23 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707–721.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders—Fourth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 271–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, L. M. (1993). Assessment of malingering after mild head trauma with the Portland Digit Recognition Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15(2), 170–182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borofsky, G. L., Wagner, J., & Turner, S. (1995). Sustained reductions in turnover and accidents associated with the ongoing use of a preemployment screening inventory: Results of a three-year longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 77(1), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campolieti, M., & Hyatt, D. E. (2006). Further evidence on the “Monday effect” in workers’ compensation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 59(3), 438–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2006). The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 315–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daltroy, L. H., Iversen, M. D., Larson, M. G., Lew, R., Wright, E., Ryan, J., Zwerling, C., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1997). A controlled trial of an educational program to prevent low back injuries. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(5), 322–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, A. P., McLennan, S. N., Schiller, S. D., Jull, G. A., Hodges, P. W., & Stewart, S. (2007). Interventions to prevent back pain and back injury in nurses: A systematic review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64(10), 642–650.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 967–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, H. (1994). The analysis of interfirm worker mobility. Journal of Labor Economics, 12, 554–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 565–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S., Roberts, D. S., & Gilmore, M. R. (1996). Predicting propensity to actively care for occupational safety. Journal of Safety Research, 27(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347–358.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. (2016). California’s 2004 workers’ compensation reform costs, claims, and contingent workers. ILR Review, 69(1), 173–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (2004). High performance work systems, organisational culture and firm effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendler, N. (2013). An internet based expert system to control workers compensation costs documented by outcome studies. Anesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care, 17(2), 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability.

  • Jones, J. W. (1980). Attitudinal correlates of employees' deviance: Theft, alcohol use, and nonprescribed drug use. Psychological Reports, 47(1), 71–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. W., & Steffy, B. D. (1986). The impact of applied psychology on the reduction of insurance losses. IL: Park Ridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. W., & Wuebker, L. J. (1988). Accident prevention through personnel selection. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(2), 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, B., & Paes De Souza, M. C. (1994). Fitting Tweedie’s compound Poisson model to insurance claims data. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1994(1), 69–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big five, or one in addition? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, B., Taylor, O. A., Hastings, S. E., Sturm, A., & Weigelt, O. (2016). The structure of counterproductive work behavior a review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (2001). Human and organizational factors in offshore safety. Work & Stress, 15(2), 144–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, C. F., & Baldwin, M. L. (2017). Workers’ compensation: Benefits, coverage, and costs (2015 data). Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(8), 1094–1102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muchinsky, P. M. (1996). The correction for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In M. R. Frone & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1), 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, M., Delgado, K., Lawrence, A., Kung, M., & Tristan, E. (2017). Predicting workers’ compensation claims and disciplinary actions using Securefit®: Further support for integrative models of workplace safety. Journal of Safety Research, 61, 77–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C., Shafiro, M., Bullard, P., & Thomas, J. C. (2012). Use of integrity tests may reduce workers’ compensation losses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. University of Iowa City, Iowa: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 679–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2012). Integrity tests predict counterproductive work behaviors and job performance well: Comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012). Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 537–542.

  • Ostafin, B. D., Palfai, T. P., & Wechsler, C. E. (2003). The accessibility of motivational tendencies toward alcohol: Approach, avoidance, and disinhibited drinking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(4), 294–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B. D., & Wade, H. (2008). Small business problems & priorities. Washington, DC: NFIB Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., & Kantrowitz, T. (2016). Choosing effective talent assessments to strengthen your organization. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragland, D. R., Krause, N., Greiner, B. A., Holman, B. L., Fisher, J. M., & Cunradi, C. B. (2002). Alcohol consumption and incidence of workers’ compensation claims: A 5-year prospective study of urban transit operators. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26(9), 1388–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P. J. (1995). Guidelines for the evaluation of malingering in posttraumatic stress disorder. In R. Simon (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder in litigation: Guidelines for forensic assessment (pp. 187–238). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., Sewell, K. W., Goldstein, A., & Leonard, K. (1998). A comparison of forensic and nonforensic malingerers: A prototypical analysis of explanatory models. Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 353–367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., & Connerley, M. L. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7(3), 261–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R. (1994). Integrity testing for personnel selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(3), 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42(3), 491–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., & Harris, M. M. (1984). Honesty testing for personnel selection: A review and critique. Personnel Psychology, 37(2), 221–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding integrity test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 550–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, I., Baldwin, M., & Reno, V. (2013). Workers’ compensation: Benefits, coverage, And costs, 2011. National Academy of Social Insurance: Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharland, M. J., & Gfeller, J. D. (2007). A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 213–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A., Friedel, E., Mehren, G., & Merten, T. (2008). Malingering and uncooperativeness in psychiatric and psychological assessment: Prevalence and effects in a German sample of claimants. Psychiatry Research, 157(1), 191–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturman, M. C., & Sherwyn, D. (2009). The utility of integrity testing for controlling workers’ compensation costs. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50(4), 432–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travelers Indemnity Company. (2008). Risk control: Managing workers’ compensation fraud (Vol. A0174). Hartford, CT: The Travelers Indemnity Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinkoff, A. M., Brady, B., & Nielsen, K. (2003). Workplace prevention and musculoskeletal injuries in nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(3), 153–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Labor (2015). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2014 [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.toc.htm.

  • U.S. Department of Labor (2017). Employer-reported workplace injuries and illnesses -- 2016 [Press release USDL-17-1482]. Retrieved May 30, 2018, from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf.

  • Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 499–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, H. M. (1921). Industrial relations and fatigue: New York: Arno Press.

  • Voigt, D. C., Dillard, J. P., Braddock, K. H., Anderson, J. W., Sopory, P., & Stephenson, M. T. (2009). BIS/BAS scales and their relationship to risky health behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, H. (2012). Small business problems & priorities (8th edition). Washington, DC: NFIB Research Foundation.

  • Wanek, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Ones, D. S. (2003). Towards an understanding of integrity test similarities and differences: An item-level analysis of seven tests. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 873–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, S., & Macdonald, S. (1999). The relationship between alcohol consumption patterns and car, work, sports and home accidents for different age groups. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 31(6), 663–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 543–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickizer, T. M., Kopjar, B., Franklin, G., & Joesch, J. (2004). Do drug-free workplace programs prevent occupational injuries? Evidence from Washington State. Health Services Research, 39(1), 91–110.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, K., & Mackenzie, S. G. (2007). Work injuries. Health Reports, 18(3), 25–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MVS School of Business & Economics, California State University Channel Islands, One University Drive, Camarillo, CA, 93012, USA

    Dylan A. Cooper

  2. Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0108, USA

    Jerel E. Slaughter

  3. Division of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, 150 E. Tenth Street, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Stephen W. Gilliland

Authors
  1. Dylan A. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerel E. Slaughter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen W. Gilliland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dylan A. Cooper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jerel E. Slaughter and Stephen W. Gilliland are paid consultants to Merchants Information Solutions, the publisher of the test used in this research. They are paid to advise the organization on issues related to testing and assessment, and not to publish or present research related to the test. Stephen W. Gilliland also serves on the board of directors of Merchants Information Solutions, which entails attending board meeting and advising the CEO on strategic decisions. He is nominally paid for meeting attendance and does not receive annual shares, bonuses, or other compensation. Dylan A. Cooper has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cooper, D.A., Slaughter, J.E. & Gilliland, S.W. Reducing Injuries, Malingering, and Workers’ Compensation Costs by Implementing Overt Integrity Testing. J Bus Psychol 36, 495–512 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09681-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09681-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation