Preventing Identity Theft in Your Business
Page 11
A final word before moving on: Tests such as those described in these chapters are scientifically developed to be valid and reliable, which means that many of these types of tests must be administered (to job applicants) by experts trained to use the special, standardized procedures required for test administration. Small businesses that do not have a qualified employee on staff can consider employee training as part of the test purchase (option A) or development package (option B). The trained employee then would administer the tests and submit them to the test publisher for scoring, interpretation, and compilation of the final report. A second alternative is to engage an industrial and organizational expert to administer the tests. In any case, do not allow the costs of testing prevent test use in your company: Recall that people are the first line of defense for business information security.
Exercise 1. The Cognitive Ability Test: Option A—Obtain, Review, Compare, and Recommend an Existing Test
Estimated Time: Four Hours
Use the team approach to obtain the test manuals for at least three cognitive ability tests from one or more of the three sources—Appendix G, the SIOP Web site, and/or the Mental Measurements Yearbooks. Once the manuals are obtained, review and compare the three tests’ manuals on these points:
Documented evidence for “predictive” validity
Documented evidence for reliability
Evidence for compliance with EEOC and Title VII guidelines on test fairness
Description of costs: test administration, interpretation, scoring, results, other
Description of testing procedures: administration, scoring, interpretation, other
Description of and rationale for a recommended cutoff score—the lowest acceptable score to be considered for the job
Test format: paper/pencil, computerized software, Web site administered?
If computerized or Web site administered: Obtain documented evidence for validity, reliability, and test fairness using these methods.
For each of at least three tests, weigh all of the above factors and then select one test as an option for management consideration for future job applicant testing. Next, consider option B, developing a proprietary test that becomes a company’s tangible asset. With this option, the business owns the test items and there are no incremental and ongoing charges by a test publisher because company employees are trained by the specialist to administer, score, interpret, and report the test results. The industrial and organizational specialist collects data and performs a development and validation procedure, establishes strong values for predictive validity and reliability, and conducts statistical analysis to ensure the test meets legal requirements for test fairness.
In exercise 2, the team obtains information on developing a proprietary test, thus enabling it to weigh and recommend to upper management the two options: purchase an existing test or develop one’s own.
Exercise 2. The Cognitive Ability Test: Option B—Develop a Company Proprietary Test
Estimated Time: Four Hours
In this exercise, the team will locate, interview, and compare the test development and validation methods and costs for at least three industrial and organizational specialists. Industrial and organizational psychology is a highly specialized discipline that requires extensive knowledge and training in the development of mathematical algorithms designed to estimate work-related attributes such as cognitive ability, motivation, and other job characteristics. The time and costs for such test development and validation can take up to six months and range from $50,000 to $150,000 or more, depending on the size and complexity of the company and the fee scale of the test specialist. Because of these wide ranges in time and cost, it is necessary to compare and contrast industrial and organziational specialists on their experience and consulting fees.
Therefore, from the Web site for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, www.siop.com, and the list in Appendix G, locate and interview by phone, mail, Internet Webinar (online conference), or in person at least three industrial and organizational test experts. For personal interviews (phone, Webinar, or in person), use the team approach in which all members participate to address these questions:
What other tests has the test expert developed, and what are the estimates of predictive validity and reliability for these tests?
What is the testing format: paper and pencil, computerized, on site, online?
What are the total fees? Obtain a breakdown for individuals versus incremental groups; the development and validation procedure; the production of the test’s manuals (for evidence of validation and test fairness and for administering, scoring, and interpreting test results); and the estimated cost the company would incur for producing each test.
Does the expert’s fee include the training of your company’s personnel to administer, score, and interpret test results? Does this fee include a training manual?
What is the time frame for the process—test development and validation, the writing and production of the test and test manuals?
Based on the information from at least three I/O specialists, select one for consideration by management as an alternative to option A, using an existing cognitive ability test.
Cognitive ability, however, is only one aspect of the person and one test in the assessment battery. In Chapter 12, the team will select a measure of motivation to estimate how interested a job applicant may be in performing the assigned job tasks.
CHAPTER 12
THE PEOPLE FRONT: SELECT FOR MOTIVATION
The Uniform Standards of the Business Information Security Program (BISP) emphasize performance to remain competitive and security to protect company assets. The cognitive ability test in Chapter 11 estimated performance by matching an applicant’s ability with the requirements of a job. However, ability without the motivation to perform the job tasks is unlikely to lead to very good job performance. Similarly, ability and motivation to perform the job without the initiative to help secure company assets would defeat company objectives. This chapter, therefore, is concerned with motivation, the second assessment in the test battery; Chapter 13 emphasizes integrity for security.
One final note before moving on: Remember the conditions of the BISP assessment battery that prohibits the administration of these tests to current employees; doing so would be in direct violation of strict legal statutes for fairness in personnel practices. As previously mentioned, current employees will be expected to help maintain an honest company culture, topics covered in Chapters 15 and 16.
STANDARD 6. SELECT FOR MOTIVATION
Goal: Investigate and make recommendations to upper management for two options for a test of job-related motivation that will be used for future personnel selection.
Specific Objectives: Consider the two options (from Chapter 11 on personnel selection) for obtaining a test of motivation: (1) use an existing test, one developed by a test publishing company, or (2) engage an industrial/organizational specialist to develop a company-owned proprietary test. For each option, compare and contrast the validity, reliability, and other criteria listed below. Then choose one test from each option to recommend to management as alternatives to consider for adoption.
Orientation
Many tests on the market today measure job-related characteristics, such as cognitive ability and motivation, as discussed in Chapter 11. Some tests are valid, but many are not. Some tests that are valid may also be misused. A test must be selected based on the results of a job analysis that shows the test attribute is related to performing the job tasks.
An example of one reputable and widely known job-related test is the Achievement via Independence scale, which is one of 21 scales (a word synonymous with “tests”) contained in the California Psychological Inventory (CPI).1 In the context of work-relatedness, this scale measures achievement motivation.
The CPI is also widely known for having perhaps the longest history of research documenting evidence for exceptionally strong values of validity and r
eliability. The CPI is based on over six decades of research, which means that test users can be confident that the tests measure what they purport to measure — in this case, achievement motivation. The CPI contains one notable scale that detects invalid protocols — responses to test items to fake good responses, fake bad responses, or simply to randomly respond. As with other inventories that also contain multiple scales, some but not all of the CPI tests can be administered independently of the others. Therefore, when reviewing inventories such as the CPI, it is important to clarify with the test publisher that the scale of interest meets the criteria of validity and reliability when administered independently.
The CPI Achievement Motivation scale was developed in 1953 to predict educational achievement motivation and was first named the “Honor Point” scale. However, over the years, the scale was found to predict achievement and motivation in a wide range of occupations that required independent thinking, which is why the scale was later assigned the label “Achievement via Independence.” The items on this scale were developed so as to purposely lack face validity, which means that the items do not intend to be representative of the name of the scale. The intention is that test users will be unaware until afterward of the type of test being administered and therefore will be less likely to be influenced to respond in one way or another to the test items.
Research shows that the Motivation scale measures on-the-job achievement independently of measures of cognitive ability. The large body of scientific literature on this 32-item scale shows strong validity ranging from .26 to .46 and reliability as high as .90. This scale, therefore, is a good test of on-the-job motivation. The team task is to view the Achievement Motivation scale and two others and select one for possible use in the BISP’s four-test battery.
Exercise 1. The Motivation Test: Option A—Obtain, Review, Compare, and Recommend an Existing Test
Estimated Time: Four Hours
Use the team approach to obtain the test manuals for at least three tests of motivation, including the Achievement Motivation scale of the CPI. Use the three sources described in Chapter 11 — Appendix G, the SIOP Web site, and/or the Mental Measurements Yearbooks; for the CPI, contact Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., at www.cpp-db.com. Once the three tests are obtained, then the team as a group is to review and compare the test manuals on each of these criteria:
Documented evidence for “predictive” validity
Documented evidence for reliability
Evidence for compliance with EEOC and Title VII guidelines on test fairness
Description of costs: test administration, interpretation, scoring, results, other
Description of testing procedures: administration, scoring, interpretation, other
Description of and rationale for a recommended cutoff score — the lowest acceptable score to be considered for the job
Test format: paper/pencil, computerized software, Web site administered?
If computerized or Web site administered: Obtain documented evidence for validity, reliability, and test fairness using these methods.
For the CPI Achievement Motivation Scale:
Obtain documented evidence on all the items just listed for using the scale independently of the other CPI scales.
Obtain documented evidence that items of the Invalid Protocol scale can also be used with the Achievement Motivation scale, independent of the remaining CPI scales.
For each of the three tests, carefully weigh all of the above factors. Then select one test to recommend that management include as the test of motivation for the BISP battery. Management may, however, prefer owning the test. Next, therefore, consider option B, in which an I/O specialist develops a test that would become the proprietary property of the company.
Exercise 2. The Motivation Test: Option B—Develop a Company Proprietary Test
Estimated Time: Four Hours
Continue with the team approach by assigning team pairs to locate and obtain at least three I/O specialists for an interview with each, conducted by all of the team members (i.e., a “group” interview). Compare and contrast the test development and validation methods and consulting fees of these three specialists. Again, use either or both the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Web site at www.siop.com and the list in Appendix G to locate an I/O specialist.
Once identified, interview (by phone, Webinar, mail, or in person) each of the experts to determine their qualifications for developing a test of motivation that can be administered independently of other tests. Be sure to cover these questions:
What other tests has the I/O expert developed, and what are the estimates of predictive validity and reliability for these tests?
What is the testing format: paper and pencil, computerized, on site, online?
What are the total fees? Obtain a breakdown for individuals versus incremental groups; the development and validation procedure; the production of the test’s manuals (for evidence of validation and test fairness and for administering, scoring, interpreting test results); and the estimated cost the company would incur for producing each test.
Does the expert’s consulting fee include the training of company personnel to administer, score, and interpret test results?
Does the consulting fee include a training manual?
Can the I/O specialist develop a motivation test for which results will be unrelated to cognitive ability, integrity, or interpersonal skills?
What is the time frame for the process: test development and validation, writing and producing the test and test manuals, and training employees?
Based on comparisons of the experts’ responses and documented supporting evidence for these questions, select one specialist whom management might consider to develop a company-owned motivation test as an alternative to using a publisher-owned, nonproprietary test.
Be sure to check off the exercises as completed (Appendix A). Then move on to Chapter 13, selecting for integrity and security.
CHAPTER 13
THE PEOPLE FRONT: SELECT FOR INTEGRITY AND SECURITY
Contrary to common thought, most identities are stolen from businesses; fewer are stolen from garbage Dumpsters or by online hackers. Phishing, the fraudulent cloning of a legitimate business’s Web site or sending a fake e-mail letter requesting personal information under the auspices of updating company records, is becoming increasingly known because of the large numbers of identities that are reported stolen in a single phishing attack. But although thefts do occur from these sources, as well as from homes, cars, and persons, the majority of identity thefts are committed inside the workplace by a relatively few dishonest employees who steal the personal identification data of a company’s most valued assets: customers and coworkers.
Oftentimes perpetrators will hire into a company on a contract basis for temporary employment. Some insiders with borderline criminal minds are used as pawns by outsider criminal friends to obtain access to company information, such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers of employees or customers. Although they may not themselves use the stolen identities of their coworkers or customers, these indirectly involved employees are, nonetheless, insider criminals because they directly facilitate the credit card, bank fraud, and other crimes committed using the stolen identities.
The solutions are three:
Businesses can incorporate into the personnel selection system a scientifically developed test to select new job applicants for characteristics of integrity and honesty.
Company cultures of honesty can be developed and easily maintained by their vast majority of hardworking and honest employees who need to feel safe where they spend a great part of their lives.
The foregoing solutions to secure business borders can be made possible only by progressive companies whose upper-level management proactively supports such initiatives.
This chapter addresses the first solution: selecting for integrity and honesty. It must be reemphasized, however, that a test of integrity and hone
sty cannot, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines and Title VII, be administered to current employees. These employees were selected into their job positions using other personnel practices, and the use of this or other tests in the battery for current employees is in direct violation of strict legal statutes.
STANDARD 7. SELECT FOR INTEGRITY AND SECURITY
Goal: Investigate and make recommendations to upper management for two options for a test of job-related integrity for security, which will be used for future personnel selection.
Specific Objectives: Consider two options for obtaining a test of integrity for security: (1) use an existing test (one developed by test publishing company), or (2) engage an industrial and organizational (I/O) specialist to develop a company-owned proprietary test. For each option, compare and contrast the validity, reliability, and other criteria as in Chapter 12 and, for convenience, listed again below. Then choose one test from each of the two options to recommend to management as alternative considerations for adoption.
Orientation
Insider theft is not a new phenomenon: Criminals operate wherever they can, be it on the street or in the workplace. In past decades, one of the greatest losses companies had to absorb was the cost of shrinkage due to the theft of merchandise by dishonest employees and other shoplifters. And, since the early 1950s, white-collar crimes of insider fraud and embezzlement have become so prevalent that entire academic disciplines have grown around the topic and any number of books and articles continue to be published on these crimes and their devastating effects on society.