A comparison of biodata, ability, and a conditional reasoning test as predictors of reliable behavior in the workplace

In this study, a new measure for predicting reliable behavior at work, Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression, was tested and compared with two other well-known predictors of work behavior, biodata and ability. Previous reviews of the literature have shown integrity testing to be a valid predictor of work behavior; however, this new measure uses an alternative measurement technique and thus does not have some of the same problems as other measures of integrity. Using a sample of call center associates, the Conditional Reasoning Test was administered as part of a selection test battery. The Conditional Reasoning Test was found to predict a number of criteria, both subjective and objective, including overall performance, customer service, cooperative social behavior, and dependability. The Conditional Reasoning Test was not able to predict objective performance criteria. When compared with alternative predictors, the Conditional Reasoning Test added incremental validity beyond that of biodata and ability for five often criteria: overall performance - supervisor, cooperative social behavior - manager, cooperative social behavior — supervisor, customer service — supervisor, and dependability - manager. A dominance analysis found that the Conditional Reasoning Test was dominant when predicting three criteria: customer service - supervisor, cooperative social behavior - manager, and dependability - manager. Biodata was dominant when predicting six criteria: overall work performance - manager, overall work performance - supervisor, customer service - manager, cooperative social behavior - manager, and dependability - manager. The Conditional Reasoning Test was determined to be a solid predictor of reliable work behavior, though not as predictive as biodata.