Do Integrity Tests Work in Hiring?

Candidate Assessment
Written by Ashley Wesley

Integrity tests do predict something, but less than their marketing suggests, and more for rule-breaking than for job performance. The largest independent update puts their link to job performance at about .15 to .18, and just .12 in studies not written by test publishers, with a stronger link to counterproductive behaviour. In Ontario there's a bigger issue: many integrity tests are personality-style questionnaires, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission says those shouldn't be used before a conditional job offer.

Here's the fair part. Every owner who has lost money, customers or a client relationship to a dishonest salesperson understands the appeal. A 20-minute questionnaire that flags risk before you hire sounds like cheap insurance.

And early research made them look very good. A large meta-analysis in 1993 pooled 665 validity coefficients and reported a mean operational validity of .41 for predicting supervisors' ratings of job performance (Ones et al., 1993).

What does the newer research say?

It tells a more modest story, and the researchers still argue about it.

In 2012, a team led by Van Iddekinge published an updated meta-analysis using stricter rules about which studies counted. Across 104 studies and 134 samples, the observed and corrected validities for job performance were .12 and .15 (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012). For counterproductive work behaviour, like theft, absenteeism and rule-breaking, the corrected figure was higher, at .32.

Two details from that update matter for anyone buying a test:

  • Who did the study changed the answer. Studies written by test publishers reported a corrected validity for job performance of .27. Studies by independent researchers reported .12 (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).
  • Self-reports flatter the result. The counterproductive behaviour link was .42 when it relied on employees' own reports, but .11 for reports by others and .15 for company records (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).

The original authors pushed back the same year, arguing that the update used partial data and coded some non-integrity scales as integrity tests, and concluding that its findings "cannot be considered accurate or reliable" (Ones et al., 2012). That debate isn't settled. What the update does show is that the number depends heavily on which studies you count, and studies written by test publishers sit at the high end (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).

One more caution: the big 2022 review that revised most hiring validities downward argued that earlier estimates were often over-corrected (Sackett et al., 2022). We couldn't confirm its revised figure for integrity tests specifically, so we're not quoting one.

What about fairness?

This is integrity tests' strongest suit. A study of 724,806 US job applicants on overt integrity tests found race differences compared with White applicants were trivial, women scored higher than men, and age differences were very small (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998). That's US data on one kind of test, so it doesn't settle fairness for every product or every Ontario protected ground, including disability.

What does Ontario say?

Two things.

Personality-style tests and timing. The Ontario Human Rights Commission's guidance on hiring says tests that assess "psychological or personality profiles" of applicants "should never be administered before a conditional offer of employment, and even then should be approached with caution" (Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC], 2008, section IV-6). It also advises avoiding testing that seeks to assess "personal interests, attitudes and values." Many integrity tests measure exactly those kinds of traits, so this guidance very likely applies to them. A vendor telling you their integrity test is "legally compliant" before an offer in Ontario is telling you something the Commission's guidance doesn't support.

Lie detectors are banned outright. Ontario's Employment Standards Act says no person shall "require, request, enable or influence an employee to take a lie detector test," and for this part of the Act, an employee includes an applicant (Employment Standards Act, 2000, ss. 68 and 70(1); Government of Ontario, 2024). The ban is aimed at device-based credibility tests. Ontario's guidance doesn't address written honesty questionnaires either way, so don't assume a computer-delivered "credibility" test is safe.

In our own process, personality testing comes after the offer, and we use it for coaching and onboarding, not to decide who gets hired. Our cognitive testing comes after the offer too.

How to check honesty in a sales hire without an integrity test

  1. Ask about the moment of conflict. "Tell me about a time a customer wanted something that would have paid you more but wasn't right for them." Specific stories are harder to fake than values statements. Our post on whether a salesperson will push customers into the wrong product has more.
  2. Check the numbers. Quota claims are the most common place a sales résumé stretches. Our guide to verifying quota attainment shows how.
  3. Ask references the direct question. "Did customers ever complain about being oversold?" See reference checks for sales hires.
  4. Do background checks properly. Ontario has specific rules for police, credit and driving checks. See background checks for a sales hire in Ontario.
  5. Keep every test for after the offer. If you use an integrity, personality or cognitive test at all, give it after a conditional offer, with consent, accommodation and a clear job link. Before the offer, steps 1 to 4 give you the evidence. Confirm your approach with employment counsel.

Two things that are both true

We'll say it for HR: integrity tests appeal to us because they turn a hard judgment into a score. That's exactly why it's worth being sceptical of the score.

Integrity tests do pick up real risk, especially for rule-breaking. And they predict job performance far less than the brochure says, they sit on the wrong side of Ontario's testing guidance before an offer, and the better evidence of honesty comes from what a candidate has actually done. For owners in Guelph and across Ontario, that's the evidence to collect first.

In short

Integrity tests predict counterproductive behaviour better than job performance. Independent studies put their link to job performance at about .12, and the updated meta-analysis put it at .15 corrected, against .32 for counterproductive behaviour (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012). Earlier research reported .41 (Ones et al., 1993), and the debate continues. In Ontario, the Human Rights Commission says personality-style tests "should never be administered before a conditional offer of employment" (OHRC, 2008), and the ESA bans requiring or even requesting a lie detector test (Employment Standards Act, 2000, s. 70(1)).

Key takeaways

  • An early meta-analysis reported .41 validity for integrity tests (Ones et al., 1993); a stricter update found .15 corrected for job performance (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).
  • Integrity tests predicted counterproductive work behaviour better (.32 corrected) than job performance (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).
  • Studies written by test publishers reported about double the validity of independent studies, .27 against .12 (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).
  • Race differences on overt integrity tests were trivial in a US sample of 724,806 applicants (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998).
  • Ontario's Human Rights Commission says personality-style tests should never be given before a conditional offer (OHRC, 2008).
  • Ontario's ESA bans requiring or requesting a lie detector test, and the ban covers applicants (Employment Standards Act, 2000, ss. 68 and 70(1)).

Frequently asked questions

Do integrity tests predict job performance?

Somewhat. The largest independent update puts the link at about .15 to .18, and .12 in studies not written by test publishers (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012). They predict counterproductive behaviour, like theft and rule-breaking, more strongly than they predict performance.

Testing isn't banned, but the Ontario Human Rights Commission says tests of psychological or personality profiles should never be given before a conditional offer of employment (OHRC, 2008), and many integrity tests are personality-style. The ESA separately bans lie detector tests (s. 70(1)). This is general information, not legal advice; confirm with employment counsel.

Can candidates fake an integrity test?

Some will try. Vendors often say their tests include faking checks; ask for independent evidence rather than the vendor's own studies, since publisher-written studies report about double the validity of independent ones (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012).

What's a better way to check a salesperson's honesty?

Specific past-behaviour questions, verified quota numbers, direct reference questions about overselling, and properly run background checks give you evidence about what the person has actually done.

Work with us

Down to your last few candidates? Our Final Candidate Review tests your finalists against your own best people before you make the offer. If it doesn't help, you don't pay.

This post is general information, not legal advice. Confirm employment decisions with employment counsel.

References

Ashley Wesley
Next

Why Sales Manager Hires Fail (and How to Get the Next One Right)