Printer Friendly

Employees' Attitudes Toward Fitness-For-Duty Testing.

Although workplace drug testing has become a common organizational practice (Greenberg et al., 1995), there is a lack of definitive evidence of its effectiveness at achieving organizational safety or productivity (see Cropanzano and Konovsky, 1993; Harris and Heft, 1992; Macdonald, 1997; Morgan, 1991; Normand et al., 1994; Thompson et al., 1991). That is, despite conventional wisdom, drug testing has not been shown to have predictive validity as a measure of organizational effectiveness (Hoffman and Lovler, 1989; Vodanovich and Reyna, 1988).

A fundamental problem with drug tests is their inability to detect drug use in time to prevent it from causing harm. Testing can only distinguish between someone who has used or been exposed to a drug and someone who has not; it cannot tell when the former took the drug, how much was taken, how frequently this person has taken this drug, or the effect of the drug on the user (Axel, 1990; Lundberger, 1986; Morgan, 1987). By the time an employee's test result has been interpreted as positive, any drug-impaired behavior would already have taken its toll. On the other hand, the metabolites in a person s urine that produce a positive test result do not necessarily mean the person cannot work, as any effects of the drug could have long worn off by the time the test was administered. As explained by Orentlicher, "a test that is positive for drug use may be falsely positive for drug impairment" (1990: 1039).

In addition to the inability of drug tests to determine impairment, testing has raised moral questions. Specifically, it has been argued that even if employees are using drugs, so long as they perform responsibly their organizations need not know about their drug use, and that if employees' performance is compromised by drugs, employers may rightfully discipline or dismiss them, but still do not need to know the root of their impeded performance (DesJardins and Duska, 1987). Many have criticized drug testing for intruding on employee privacy (see, for example, Caste, 1992; Flaig, 1990; Haas, 1990; Hanson, 1988; Lewis, 1990; Maltby, 1990; Orendicher, 1990; Pavlovich, 1989). Indeed, research suggests that drug testing may especially lead to negative attitudes and behaviors when it is perceived as invasive (Hanson, 1990; Latessa et al., 1988; Masters et at., 1988; Murphy et al,1991; Murphy et al., 1990; Smith, 1988; Stecher and Ross, 1992; Stone and Kotch, 1989; Stone and Vine, 1989).

Because there is considerable evidence that drug testing can have a potentially negative impact on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and that it cannot detect impaired performance, its usefulness as a management tool is arguable. Some have asserted that workplace drug testing prevails in the United States--despite the absence of evidence of its usefulness for enhancing safety and productivity--for sociopolitical and symbolic reasons, rather than rational practical ones (see Borg and Arnold, 1997; Cavanaugh and Prasad, 1994; Guthrie and Olian, 1991; Karper et al,1994; Thompson et at., 1991; Wisotsky, 1987; Zimmer and Jacobs, 1992). Indeed, drug testing is markedly less common in Canadian organizations (Jain et al., 1998).

This article explores fitness-for-duty testing as a possible alternative to drug testing. After describing fitness-for-duty testing and contrasting two commercial tests, manufacturers' and journalists' praise of these tests is assessed by examining the results of a field study in which employees who take fitness-for-duty tests at their workplace responded to questionnaires about their attitudes toward these tests.

FITNESS-FOR-DUTY TESTING

Compared with biological testing, performance-based fitness-for-duty (FFD) testing is potentially less invasive to employees and better suited to identifying the substandard work that should ultimately concern managers, before it occurs. In organizations that use FFD testing, the ability, or fitness, of employees performing safety-sensitive jobs (those whose mistakes can have tragic as well as expensive consequences) is checked at the beginning of their work shift. Employees whose tests indicate impairment are sent home or reassigned to tasks that are not safety-sensitive. Because FFD testing has only recently been adapted for the workplace, it is not widely known. In fact, just 1% of the 1,151 organizations answering one survey on workplace drug testing reported that they used FFD testing (Greenberg et al., 1995). Likewise, not one of 50 drug-testing organizations in a second survey practiced FED testing, and representatives of the 84 nontesting organizations in the sample generally viewed such testing as l ess appropriate than drug testing (Comer and Buda, 1996). Also, human resources scholars are, apparently, as unfamiliar with FFD testing as their counterparts in industry. A review of the advantages of computerized tests over more traditional paper-and-pencil tests made no mention of the application of the former to determine FFD (Drasgow et al., 1993).

Commercial FFD Tests: Delta-WP and Factor 1000

Delta-WP. The seven tests in the Essex Company's Delta-WP repertoire measure different factors important for cognitive, perceptual, and psychomotor skills by having test-takers select on their keyboard the correct answer about the images on their screen. Tests are combined into various batteries to match the skill and educational levels of the client's test-takers. A test-taker's score is the sum of the scores on the subtests in the battery.

There is empirical evidence of the reliability, stability, and criterion validity of Delta-WP tests to detect such risk factors as drugs, stress, lack of sleep, etc. (Turnage and Kennedy, 1992; Turnage et al, 1992). However, because Delta-WP, which has been developed to be applicable for a variety of jobs, measures impairment broadly, it lacks job-relevant criterion validity (i.e., it is not able to predict a test-taker's job performance). Nonetheless, the product's manufacturers contend that implementing Delta-WP in a workplace may reduce the number of accidents because (1) impaired employees who are detected will not have an opportunity to make mistakes or perform in a hazardous fashion and (2) daily FFD testing will discourage employees from arriving at work in an impaired state.

A passing score depends on an employee's own baseline as well as the standard set by the company. The latter is derived by weighing the costs of preventing employees who are actually fit from working (false positives) against the costs of potential damage caused by employees who pass but are actually unfit to work (false negatives). Essex asserts that it would be difficult for an employee to deflate performance artificially on the baseline-setting trials so as to pass later when impaired, because it would be too tough to repeat the pattern of continued depression, and because it is highly unusual for a test-taker to give more than a very few incorrect responses per test. Doing so would alert test administrators.

Factor 1000. Factor 1000, manufactured by Performance Factors, Inc. (PFI), is a version of the critical tracking test (CTT), which measures hand-eye motor skills. There is extensive empirical evidence of the risk-factor criterion validity of the CTT (Allen et al., 1981; Allen et al, 1990; Belleville et al., 1979; Burns and Moskowitz, 1980; Klein and Jex, 1975; O'Hanlon, 1981; Stoller and Bellville, 1976). There is also evidence of its job-related criterion validity for work requiring hand-eye coordination (Allen et al., 1981).

A test-taker uses a control knob to try to keep a randomly careening cursor centered between markers on his or her screen. Each time the cursor is returned by the test-taker to its position between the markers, it accelerates, until, finally, the test-taker can no longer control it. As the brief testing session progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to control the cursor. Scoring depends on how far the cursor veers from the center each time, how long the test-taker takes to regain control of the cursor each time, and how long the cursor is kept centered. An employee has eight attempts to meet his or her baseline, which is set so that the test-taker has a 60% chance of passing any given trial. The computer algorithm can detect if an employee is purposely underperforming, and will alert test administrators. Like Essex. PFI asserts that use of Factor 1000 deters risky behavior because employees know they will have to pass a performance test.

Popular press accounts have praised FFD testing with Delta-WP and Factor 1000 as less invasive and better able than urinalysis to determine impairment that may or may not stem from drug use (Fine, 1992; Frieden, 1990; Hanson, 1990; Maltby, 1990; McGinley, 1992; The New York Times, 1991; Stevens, 1990; Warshauer, 1991).Journalists have, moreover, described FFD tests as fun for employees to take. On the other hand, Gilliland and Schlegel (1993) have expressed concern that employees may resent the intrusion of having to take FFD tests, which are administered daily. Because FFD testing seems promising for organizations that care more about their employees' readiness to perform than the cause of any impairment, it merits attention (Gilliland and Schlegel, 1993; Harris and Heft, 1992; Normand et al., 1994). In particular, in that reactions to personnel systems and procedures have an impact on individual and organizational outcomes (e.g., Robertson et al., 1991), employees' views about FFD testing need to be consid ered. Although the manufacturers of Delta-WP and Factor 1000, as well as journalists, have depicted FFD testing as noninvasive and inoffensive to employees, there has been no study of either FFD test in an actual workplace setting. To ascertain how employees who take FFD tests view them, the author conducted a field study of Delta-WP and Factor 1000.

Hypotheses

A key distinction between these two FFD tests is that Factor 1000 has been designed to measure impairment specifically for those whose jobs require hand-eye coordination, whereas Delta-WP has been developed to gauge impairment more broadly. That is, both of these FFD tests have been developed to detect the presence of risk factors, such as exhaustion or drug use (risk-factor criterion validity), but only Factor 1000 also assesses one's ability to perform one's job (job-related criterion validity). As a result, Factor 1000 should have greater face validity than Delta-WP. A hypothesis was thus proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Factor 1000 test-takers, compared to Delta-WP test-takers, will perceive FFD testing as better able to determine if an employee is too impaired to work.

Employees' perceptions of their FFD test's ability to assess whether they and/or their co-workers are too impaired to do their jobs are important. Indeed, Rynes and Connerley (1993) and Schuler (1993) observed that applicants have more favorable attitudes toward selection devices they deem job-relevant. Further, Comer and Buda (1996) reported that awareness of the inability of drug tests to assess impairment was related to more negative views of drug testing. Therefore, a second hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 2. To the extent that test-takers perceive an FFD test as able to determine if an employee is too impaired to work, they will have more favorable views of FFD testing.

ATTITUDES OF EMPLOYEES WHO TAKE FFD TESTS

As reported, only a few organizations conduct FFD testing. Delta-WP and Factor 1000 users were identified through trade publications or conversations with the test manufacturers.

Measures

A questionnaire sent to employees in five organizations using FFD testing solicited general information (number of years worked at the organization,job title, gender, age, and education) and used five-point Likert-type questions to assess employees' views of FFD testing (see Table 1). The items pertaining to employees' perceptions of 1) the ability of FFD testing to determine if a person is too impaired to work, 2) the invasiveness of FFD testing, 3) the ability of FFD tests to enhance safety in the workplace, and 4) the experience of taking FFD tests were pre-tested with employees who had taken FFD tests daily for about a year until their organization discontinued testing. These items were adapted from drug testing studies (Coiner and Buda, 1996; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Stone and Vine, 1989) by substituting the word "performance" for "drug." Respondents were also invited to explain their responses and record any other comments. Each respondent received a cover letter explaining the purpose of the res earch (to learn about employees' views of FFD testing), a copy of the questionnaire, and a self-addressed postage-paid envelope in which to return the completed questionnaire directly to the investigator. Follow-up materials (another copy each of the questionnaire and envelope, accompanied by a modified cover letter) were sent two weeks later. The contact person at one organization provided the names of all employees who took FFD tests, enabling the investigator to send questionnaires directly to these employees. At the other organizations, however, the contact person distributed questionnaires to employees.

Sample

The data analysis includes responses from 132 individuals (an overall response rate of 38.2%). Seventy-one employees of companies on the West Coast of the U.S. responded about Factor 1000. At a resort, 43 of 100 employees returned the questionnaire (43%); at an ambulance service, 17 of 35 (45.6%) did; and at a petroleum distributor, 13 of 35 (37.1%) did, but two questionnaires were unusable. Sixty-one employees of companies on the East Coast of the U.S. responded about Delta-WP. At a pharmaceuticals concern, 11 of the 20 (55%) responded to the questionnaire. At a contractor of security guards, 65 questionnaires were returned. (The company president, who had taken several months to decide about participating in the study, suddenly, without notifying the investigator, reproduced and distributed the sample questionnaire to his employees. He estimated an n of 200, for a response rate of 32.5%.) However, only 50 of these were usable; one was completed incorrectly and 14 were completed by individuals who personall y had never taken an FFD test (their organization administers FFD tests on a random basis).

The mean age of the 29 females and 103 males in the sample was 43.72 years (s.d. = 14.45). All but 18 (86.15%) had at least a high school diploma. Seventy-eight (60.00%) had completed at least some college, and 30 (23.08%) had completed an undergraduate degree. This subset of employees who returned the questionnaire was not observed to be demographically different from the total set that received the questionnaire. Respondents represented such safety-sensitive jobs as childcare workers, drivers of motorized vehicles, inspectors, machinery/equipment operators, paramedics, scientists, and security guards. Eighty (60.61%) respondents wrote comments in the space provided (see Appendix). Eight comments were purely positive; 13, ambivalent; and the remainder, negative.

RESULTS

Although employees, on average, perceived FED tests as somewhat noninvasive, they perceived them as slightly unable to determine impairment for work or to enhance workplace safety and viewed the experience of taking them somewhat negatively (see Table 2). Nonetheless, the somewhat high standard deviations for the attitudinal variables indicate a range in respondents' views toward FED tests.

Effect of Test Type on Perceived Ability of FFD Testing to Determine Work Impairment

The first hypothesis was not supported. Although respondents from Factor 1000 organizations perceived FED testing as less able to determine if an employee is too impaired to work than did those from Delta-WP organizations (respective means = 2.56 and 3.22; t = -3.17, 130 d.f., p[less than].0019), simultaneous regression analysis indicated that test type does not significantly predict perceived ability to determine impairment for work, once other variables are also considered (see Table 3). Apparently, the significant relationship between test type and perceived ability to detect impairment for work is due to each variable's high relationship with employees' age.

Effect of Perceived Ability of FFD Testing to Determine Work Impairment on Attitudes toward FFD Testing

Thirty-six employees (27.3% of the sample) remarked that they believed that FFD tests do not determine impairment. Referring to their own and co-workers' behavior, they reported that individuals under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs can pass their tests, and further noted that individuals too impaired to do their jobs can pass while fit individuals may fail. Also, despite test manufacturers' claims that test-takers cannot purposely depress their scores without being noticed, some employees commented that it is possible to fail one's FFD test deliberately.

The data do support the second hypothesis. Respondents who perceived FFD testing as better able to determine impairment for work also perceived FFD tests as less invasive, better able to enhance workplace safety, and more pleasant to take. Perceptions of the ability of FFD testing to determine impairment for work significantly predicted each of these three attitudinal variables (see Table 3). Moreover, hierarchical regression analysis indicated that when perceived ability of FFD testing to determine impairment for work was added to the regression equation of each of these variables after the other variables had already been entered, it created a change in [R.sup.2] of 5% (at p[less than].05), 28% (at p[less than].00l), and 19% (at p[less than].001) of the variance, respectively, for perceived invasiveness, perceived ability to enhance safety, and experience of taking a test. It may be noted that age was a significant predictor of the perceived invasiveness of FFD testing and of its perceived safety-enhancing abilities. Younger respondents viewed FFD testing as more invasive and less able to enhance workplace safety. None of the other demographic variables (years at the organization, gender, and education) was significantly related to attitudes toward FFD tests, nor were attitudes toward FFD tests a function of job type.

DISCUSSION

The popular press has touted FFD tests as effective and employee-friendly, an ideal alternative to biological drug tests for preventing substandard and unsafe work behavior. Further, laboratory research has supplied evidence that these tests are psychometrically solid. But a field study of FFD testing programs had heretofore been conspicuously absent.

The research presented here was undertaken to assess real employees' views about FFD testing. The results depict two commercial FFD tests (Factor 1000 and Delta-WP) in a less idealized way than do journalists. In general, test-takers do perceive FFD tests as noninvasive, but they question the ability of these tests to determine impairment for work or to enhance workplace safety. Also, in contrast to journalists' claims, the employees in this study by no means viewed their experience of taking FFD tests as enjoyable. No relationship was observed between FFD test type and the perceived ability of the test to determine impairment for work, despite the fact that only one of the two tests (Factor 1000) assesses employees' ability to perform their job. As predicted, respondents who perceived FFD testing as able to determine if someone is too impaired to work also perceived FFD tests as less invasive, less unpleasant to take, and better able to enhance safety in their workplace. Age also emerged as a predictor of v iews toward testing, with younger respondents more likely than their older coworkers to report that FFD tests are invasive and unable to determine work impairment or to enhance workplace safety. These findings are consistent with those reported about the impact of age on attitudes toward drug testing (Latessa et al., 1988; Stone et al., 1989). Perhaps older workers are more tolerant of personnel assessment decisions imposed by their superiors in the organizational hierarchy, whereas their younger coworkers are more likely to question and doubt authority.

A minority of respondents remarked that fit individuals fail FFD tests while patently impaired ones pass. Unimpaired individuals may fail as a result of severe test-taking anxiety. But how do impaired employees pass their FFD tests? They may acquire tolerance to their drug of choice, enabling them to perform their well-learned FFD test and the more routine facets of their jobs (see Alcohol Alert, 1994; Chesher and Greeley, 1992; Grinspoon and Balakar, 1993), but remain incapable of performing complex or unfamiliar tasks (see Glencross et al., 1995). It has also been posited that individuals who are too impaired even to perform the most basic aspects of their job may still be able to concentrate for the moments required to pass an FFD test (see Gilliland and Schlegel, 1993). Likewise, complex novel tasks are noticeably more susceptible to the effects of alcohol consumption than are simple routine tasks (Streufert et al., 1994). FFD test manufacturers need to address these detection deficits, which limit the c apacity of their tests to promote workplace safety.

That some respondents admitted they could pass or fail at will is also disconcerting. It has been suggested that an FED test (such as Delta-WP or Factor 1000) that aims to measure changes in voluntary responses, which test-takers can "fudge," is inferior to a test that gauges involuntary changes (R. Attwood, biochemical engineer at Exxon, personal communication). Test manufacturers' claims that faking is detectable need not be summarily dismissed; it could be that faking occurs because test administrators have insufficient time to interpret all available feedback from the testing apparatus. Nonetheless, the labor required to conduct FFD testing properly is an expense companies should consider before initiating a testing program.

Limitations of this study cannot be overlooked. First, because all data were collected at the same time with the same research instrument, common method variance may be a possible explanation for some of the observed relationships between variables. Second, the investigator's lack of control over the distribution of questionnaires and the need to depend upon the two test manufacturers to identify some of the organizations in the sample compromised sampling rigor. Relatedly, the resulting sample size fell short of the number indicated by power analysis (about 165). Because it is reasonable to assume that the manufacturers sampled might have blocked access to their less contented clients, employees in this study may be more positively disposed toward FFD testing than the slightly larger population of all FFD test-takers of which they are a subset.

To assess the usefulness of FFD testing, future research needs to move beyond attitudinal responses by examining the relationship between employees' FFD test results and their work behaviors. Notwithstanding the difficulty of persuading FFD-testing organizations to allow employees to perform their jobs after failing a test, this design is important for ascertaining the degree to which a testing program contributes to reduced accidents and mistakes. Indeed, the validity of workplace urine testing has been assessed (and found to be problematic) by comparing the job performance of individuals who failed their pre-employment drug tests with that of their counterparts who passed (Normand et al., 1990; Parish, 1989; Zwerling et al., 1990). It is also left for future research to examine employees' views toward FFD vs. drug tests, which could not be considered in the present study because the organizations investigated in the present study did not conduct drug testing.

Meanwhile, the results of this study can inform human resources practitioners who want to enhance workplace safety but are aware of drug testing's inability to detect impairment and its intrusiveness to employees. Although employees generally do not embrace FFD testing, they do perceive it as noninvasive, which contributes to its viability for organizational adoption. However, to the extent that employees have doubts about the ability of FFD tests to assess impairment for work, they will likely perceive them as unfair, which is problematic insofar that employees respond negatively to personnel procedures and systems they deem unfair (Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998; Kidwell and Bennett, 1994; Latham and Seijts, 1997; Richard and Kirby, 1998; Summers, 1995; Thornton, 1993). Indeed, because employees' perceptions of FFD tests' ability to determine impairment for work are related to their attitudes toward these tests, it behooves human resources managers who do plan to implement an FFD testing program to assure employees of the capacity of these tests to detect risk factors. They may, for example, wish to provide training to address the test-taking anxiety that can cause fit employees to fail their FFD tests. They should also be prepared to devote necessary resources to the testing process. In particular, proper use of an FFD testing program requires sufficient testing stations and program coordinators to monitor employees' test results. That some employees pass their FFD tests while under the influence poses a particularly daunting hurdle to employers seeking to introduce FFD testing. Even if substance users can, due to drug tolerance, perform their work duties, co-workers who observe them pass their FFD tests while intoxicated will become resentful and will doubt the appropriateness and validity of these tests.

References

Alcohol Alert. 1994. "Alcohol-related Impairment." July (No. 25, PH 351): 1-3.

Allen, R.W., A.C. Stein, and H.R. Jex. 1981. "Detecting Human Operator Impairment with a Psychomotor Task." Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference on Manual Control, Los Angeles, CA.

_____, _____, _____, and J.C. Miller. 1990. "Performance Testing as a Determinant of Fitness for Duty." Paper presented at the Society for Automotive Engineers Aerotech Conference, Warrendale, PA.

Axel, H. 1990. "Corporate Experiences with Drug Testing Programs." Research Report No. 941. New York, NY: Conference Board.

Belleville, J.P., F. Dorey and J.W. Bellville. 1979. "Effects of Nefopam on Visual Tracking." Clinical Pharmacology Therapy 26: 457-463.

Borg, M.J. and W.P. Arnold, III. 1997. "Social Monitoring as Social Control: The Case of Drug Testing in a Medical Workplace." Sociological Forum 12: 441-460.

Burns, M. and H. Moskowitz. 1980. "Effects of Diphenhydramine and Alcohol on Skills Performance." European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 17: 259-266.

Caste, N.J. 1992. "Drug Testing and Productivity." Journal of Business Ethics 11:301-306.

Cavanaugh, J.M. and P. Prasad. 1994. "Drug Testing as Symbolic Managerial Action: A Response to 'A Case against Workplace Drug Testing'." Organization Science 5: 267-271.

Cawley, B.D., L.M. Keeping and P.E. Levy. 1998. "Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-analytic Review of Field Investigations." Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 615-633.

Chesher, G. and J. Greeley. 1992. "Tolerance to the Effects of Alcohol." Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 8: 93-106.

Comer, D.R. and R. Buda. 1996. "Drug-testers vs. Non-testers: Human Resources Managers' Perceptions and Organizational Characteristics." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 9: 131-148.

Cortina, J.M. 1993. "What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Application." Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 98-104.

Cropanzano, R. and M. Konovsky. 1993. "Drug Use and its Implications for Employee Drug Testing." In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 11. Eds. G. Ferris and M. Rowland. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 207-257.

DesJardins, J. and R. Duska. 1987. "Drug Testing in Employment." Business & Professional Ethics Journal 6: 3-21.

Drasgow, F.,J.B. Olson, P.A. Keenan, P. Moberg and A.D. Mead. 1993. "Computerized Assessment." In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 11. Eds. G. Ferris and M. Rowland. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 163-206.

Fine, C.R. 1992. "Video Tests are the New Frontier in Drug Detection." Personnel Journal 149-161.

Flaig, J.M. 1990. "Preserving Employee Rights during the War on Drugs." Pacific Law Journal 21: 995-1033.

Frieden, J. 1990. "Corporate America's Response to Substance Abuse." Business and Health 8: 32-42.

Gilliland, K. and R.E. Schlegel. 1993. "Readiness to Perform Testing: A Critical Analysis of the Concept and Current Practices." Technical report DOT/FAA/AM-93/13. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

Glencross, D., T. Hansen and J. Piek. 1995. "The Effects of Alcohol on Preparation for Expected and Unexpected Events." Drug and Alcohol Review 14:171-173.

Greenberg, E.R., C. Canzoneri and T. Straker. 1995. 1994 AMA Survey on Workplace Drug Testing and Drug Abuse Policies. New York, NY: American Management Association.

Grinspoon, L. and J.B. Balakar. 1993. Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Guthrie, J.P. and J.D. Olian. 1991. "Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs: Do Firms Consider Their Operating Environments?" Human Resource Planning 14: 221-232.

Haas, K.C. 1990. "The Supreme Court Enters the "Jar Wars": Drug Testing, Public Employees, and the Fourth Amendment." Dickinson Law Review 94: 305-371.

Hanson, F.A. 1988. "Some Social Implications of Drug Testing." The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 899-917.

_____. 1990. "What Employees Say about Drug Testing." Personnel 67: 32-36.

Hoffman, R.G. and R. Lovler. 1989. "Drug Testing: A Multifaceted Issue." AITIA (Fall): 6-18.

Harris, M.M. and L.L. Heft. 1992. "Alcohol and Drug Use in the Workplace: Issues, Controversies, and Directions for Future Research." Journal of Management 18: 239-266.

Jain, H.C., M. Piczak and I.U. Zeytinoglu. 1998. "Workplace Substance Testing: An Exploratory Study." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 11: 41-55.

Karper, M.D., C.B. Donn and M.E. Lyndaker. 1994. "Drug Testing in the Transportation Industry: The Maritime Case." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 7: 219-233.

Kidwell, R.E. and N. Bennett. 1994. "Employee Reactions to Electronic Control Systems: The Role of Procedural Fairness." Group and Organization Management 19: 203-218.

Klein, R.H. and H.R. Jex. 1975. "Effects of Alcohol on a Critical Tracking Task." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 36: 11-20.

Konovsky, M.A. and R. Cropanzano. 1991. "Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 698-707.

Latessa, E.J., L.F. Travis and F.T. Cullen. 1988. "Public Support for Mandatory Drug Testing in the Workplace." Crime and Delinquency 34: 379-392.

Latham, G.P. and G.H. Seijts. 1997. "The Effect of Appraisal Instrument on Managerial Perceptions of Fairness and Satisfaction with Appraisals from Their Peers." Canadian Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 29: 275-282.

Lewis, A. 1990. "Drug Testing: Can Privacy Interests be Protected under the "Special Needs" Doctrine?" Brooklyn Law Review 56: 1013-1044.

Lundberger, G. 1986. "Mandatory Unindicated Urine Drug Screening Still Chemical McCarthyism." JAMA 256: 3003-3004.

Macdonald, S. 1997. "Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Testing: A Review of the Scientific Evidence." Drug & Alcohol Review 16: 251-259.

Maltby, L.L. 1990. "Put Performance to the Test." Personnel 67: 30-31.

Masters, M.F., G.R. Ferris and S.L. Ratcliff. 1988. "Practice and Attitudes of Substance Abuse Testing." Personnel Administrator 33: 72-78.

McGinley, L. 1992." 'Fitness' Exams Help to Measure Worker Acuity." Wall Street Journal (April 21): B1, B10.

Morgan, J.P. 1987. "Urine Testing for Abused Drugs: Technology and Problems." In Aids and Drug Abuse in the Work Place. Ed. S.G. Kramer. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. pp. 63-67.

_____. 1991. "Under What Influence?: A Critical Review of Reputed Benefits of Workplace Drug Testing." Unpublished paper. New York, NY: City University of New York Medical School.

Murphy, KR., G.C. Thornton and K Prue. 1991. "Influence of Job Characteristics on the Acceptability of Employee Drug Testing." Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 447-453.

_____, _____ and D.H. Reynolds. 1990. "College Students' Attitudes toward Employee Drug Testing Programs." Personnel Psychology 43: 615-631.

The New York Times. 1991. "Yes, Test to Prevent Tragedy." (August 30): A-22.

Normand, J., R.O. Lempert and C.P. O'Brien. (Eds). 1994. Under the Influence?: Drugs and the American Work Force. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

_____, S.D. Salyards and J.J. Mahoney. 1990. "An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing." Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 629-639.

O'Hanlon, J.F. 1981. "Critical Tracking Test (CTT) Sensitivity to Fatigue in Truck Drivers." In Human Factors in Transportation Research. Eds. B.J. Osborn and J.A. Levis. London: Academic Press. pp. 143-150.

Orentlicher, D. 1990. "Drug Testing of Physicians." JAMA 264 (August 22/29): 1039-1040.

Parish, D.C. 1989. "Relation of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result to Employment Status: A One-year Follow-up." Journal of General Internal Medicine 4 (January/February): 44-47.

Pavlovich, J.S. 1989. "Just Say Yes to Drug-testing Legislation: The Skinner and Von Raab Decisions." DePaul Law Review 39: 161-198.

Richard, O.C. and S.L. Kirby. 1998. "Women Recruits' Perceptions of Workforce Diversity Program Selection Decisions: A Procedural Justice Examination." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 183-188.

Robertson, I.T., P.A. Iles, L. Gratton, and D. Sharpley. 1991. "The Impact of Personnel Selection and Assessments on Candidates." Human Relations 44: 93-982.

Rynes, S.L. and M.L. Connerley. 1993. "Applicant Reactions to Alternative Selection Procedures." Journal of Business and Psychology 7: 261-277.

Stecher, M.D. and J.G. Ross. 1992. "Attitudes toward Random Drug Testing in the Aviation Industry." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal.

Smith, B. 1988. "Employee-supported Drug Testing." Personnel Journal: 134-137.

Stevens, W.K. 1990. "Measuring Workplace Impairment." New York Times (March 6): B5, 8.

Stoller, K. and J.W. Bellville. 1976. "Effects on Visual Tracking of Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol and Pentobarbital." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 16 (5-6): 271-275.

_____ and P.L. Vine. 1989. "Some Procedural Determinants of Attitudes toward Drug Testing." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Boston, MA.

Stone, D.L. and D.A. Kotch. 1989. "Individuals' Attitudes toward Organizational Drug Testing Policies and Practices." Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 518-521.

Stone, E.F., D.L. Stone and D. Hyatt. 1989. "Personnel Selection Procedures and Invasion of Privacy." In Privacy in Organizations: Personnel Selection, Physical Environment, and Legal Issues. Chair R. Guion. Symposium conducted at the Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Boston, MA.

Streufert, S., R. Pogash, J. Roache, W. Severs, D. Gingrich, R. Landis, L. Lonardi, and A. Kantner. 1994. "Alcohol and Managerial Performance." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55: 230-238.

Summers, R. J. 1995. "Attitudes Toward Different Methods of Affirmative Action." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25: 1090-1104.

Thompson, F.J., N.M. Riccucci and C. Ban. 1991. "Drug Testing in the Federal Workplace: An Instrumental and Symbolic Assessment." Public Administration Review 51: 515-525.

Thornton, G.C., III. 1993. "The Effect of Selection Practices on Applicants' Perceptions of Organizational Characteristics." In Personnel Selection and Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Eds. H. Schuler, J.L. Farr and M. Smith. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 57-69.

Turnage, J.J. and R.S. Kennedy. 1992. "The Development and Use of a Computerized Human Performance Test Battery for Repeated-Measures Applications." Human Performance 5: 265-301.

_____,_____, M.G. Smith, D.R. Baltzley and N.E. Lane. 1992. "Development of Microcomputer-based Mental Acuity Tests." Ergonomics 35: 1271-1295.

Vodanovich, S.J. and M. Reyna. 1988. "Alternatives to Workplace Testing." Personnel Administrator 33: 78-84.

Warshauer, W. 1991. "Performance Testing." The New York Times (September 17): A-20.

Wisotsky, S. 1987. "The Ideology of Drug Testing." Nova Law Review 11: 763-778.

Zimmer, L. and J.B. Jacobs. 1992. "The Business of Drug Testing: Technological Innovation and Social Control." Contemporary Drug Problems (Spring): 1-26.

Zwerling, C.,J. Ryan and E.J. Orav. 1990. "The Efficacy of Preemployment Drug Screening for Marijuana and Cocaine in Predicting Employment Outcome." JAMA 264: 2639-2643.

Scales and Items Assessing Views toward FFD Tests" [a]

Perceived Ability of FFD Tests to Determine Impairment for Work ([alpha] = .78)

Performance tests can measure if an employee is fit to perform his or her job. 3.07 (1.36)

The result of an individual's performance test indicate weather or not the individual is too impaired to work. 2.66 (1.38)

Perceived Invasiveness of FFD Tests ([alpha] = .63)

Performance [*] testing is an invasion of an employee's privacy. 3.47 (1.34)

The [*] results of a performance test reveal personal information that someone's employer has no right to know. 3.76 (1.22)

Perceived Ability of FFD Tests to Enhance Workplace Safety ([alpha] = .89)

Knowing that my company conducts performance testing makes me feel safe when I'm at work. 2.71 (1.34)

I feel more secure because my company conducts performance testing. 2.91 (1.31)

Experience of Taking FFD Tests ([alpha] = .72)

Taking a performance test is fun. 2.49 (1.30)

Taking a performance test is a pleasant experience. 2.41 (1.20)

(a.) The items referred to "performance testing" because this term was more familiar to respondents. Responses range from 1 (I disagree strongly) to 5 (I agree strongly). Factor analysis of the four scales demonstrated the unidimensionality of the items within each scale (see Cortina, 1993). Within each scale items were averaged to derive the scale score.

(*.) These items are reverse-coded; higher values indicate more positive views toward FFD tests.
 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
 Matrix
 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. TEST TYPE [1] .27 [b] .06 .27 [b] .22 [b] -.19 [a] .12
2. IMPAIRMENT .22 [b] .66 [d] .47 [d] -.08 .00
3. INVASIVENESS .33 [d] .35 [d] -.10 .03
4. SAFETY .63 [d] -.04 .02
5. EXPERIENCE OF TEST-TAKING -.08 -.02
6. YEARS [2] -.02
7. GENDER [3]
8. AGE
9. EDUCATION
 8 9
1. TEST TYPE [1] .52 [d] -.38 [d]
2. IMPAIRMENT .30 [c] -.22 [a]
3. INVASIVENESS -.05 -.05
4. SAFETY .38 [d] -.24 [c]
5. EXPERIENCE OF TEST-TAKING .14 -.19 [a]
6. YEARS [2] .20 [a] -.01
7. GENDER [3] .29 [c] -.20 [a]
8. AGE -.32 [c]
9. EDUCATION
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
mean --- 2.86 3.59 2.80 2.46 2.92 --- 43.72 2.77
s.d. --- 1.24 1.12 1.26 1.12 1.38 --- 14.45 1.09


Note: Higher values for measures 2-5 indicate more positive views toward FFD testing.

(a.)p [less than] .05

(b.)p [less than] .01

(c.)p [less than] .001

(d.)p [less than] .0001

(1.)Factor 1000 test-takers were coded as 1; Delta-WP test-takers as 2.

(2.)From 1 (less than a year) to 5 (10 years or more).

(3.)Females were coded as 1; males as 2.

(4.)From 1 (some high school) to 7 (doctorate).
 Results of Regression Analyses
Dependent variable Independent variable b s.e. t p [less than]
Perceived ability test type .12 .26 .44 .66
of FFD testing years at company -.12 .08 -1.42 .16
to determine gender -.40 .26 1.54 .13
impairment age .02 .01 2.58 .01
for work education -.14 .10 -1.39 .17
Perceived impairment .24 .09 2.72 .008
invasiveness test type .14 .25 .57 .57
of FFD testing years at company -.02 .08 -.32 .75
 gender .26 .26 1.01 .31
 age -.02 .01 -1.65 .10
 education -.03 .10 -.34 .73
Perceived impairment .57 .07 7.68 .0001
ability of test type -.05 .22 -.21 .83
FFD testing years at company -.04 .07 -.66 .51
to enhance gender -.19 .22 -.87 .39
safety age .02 .01 2.56 .01
 education -.08 .09 -.94 .35
Experience impairment .42 .08 5.49 .0001
of taking test type .25 .22 1.12 .27
FFD test years at company .01 .07 .16 .87
 gender -.03 .23 -.14 .89
 age -.00 .01 -.49 .63
 education -.08 .09 -.91 .36


Appendix

Representative Comments about FFD Testing

Positive Comments:

To me, performance testing is a good thing, because it allows someone with the knowledge of reading the results of an individual's testing to pick out how alert, responsive, and responsible that person is.

Since its use began, those thought to be "on drugs" are no longer here. Those who in the past would drink alcohol in the off duty hours prior to working tend (I think) to not do so, because of fear of failing.

Ambivalent Comments:

Although I'm not real fond of performance testing, I do think there is a need for it . . . . [W]hether it works or not, [it] is at least a means of trying to be proactive in safety concerns.

Performance testing is a valid way to assess my fitness for work and is much more palatable than drug testing. As with any method, I don't think it is 100% foolproof.

Negative Comments:

I have seen workers hung over to the extent that [they] can't do their jobs well, but can pass Factor 1000.

I have failed the computerized fitness test when there was no reason for me to be "unfit" -- no controlled substances, plenty of rest, no undue stress. I have also seen people come to work extremely hung over and pass.

I have seen people drink three beers and two shots of hard liquor and pass. This is not a foolproof system.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Comer, Debra R.
Publication:Journal of Managerial Issues
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2000
Words:6586
Previous Article:The Effectiveness Of Long-Term Accounting-Based Incentive Plans.
Next Article:Board Composition And Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis Of The Influence Of Outside Directors.
Topics:


Related Articles
BREAKING A SWEAT.
ADA fitness exams need forensic psychiatrists. (Psychiatric Disabilities Most Common).
Booze pilots nicked.
Fitness-for-duty evaluations should focus on key facts.
SAP services: a natural extension of EAPs: providing substance abuse professional services can make EA professionals better aware of the trends and...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters