Creating healthier workplaces: The American Psychological Association/National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health cooperative agreement. Introduction and historical overview.

This article introduces the special section on the American Psychological Association/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (APA/NIOSH) collaboration. The section includes an overview statement of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research by Linda Rosenstock and 5 competitively peer-reviewed articles submitted to the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology following their presentation in an earlier form at the 3rd APA/NIOSH conference in September 1995. This article provides a brief history of the APA/NIOSH collaboration forged at the turn of this decade.

William C. Howell (1932-2012).

This article memorializes William C. Howell (1932-2012). Bill had several careers in psychology. He made important academic and research contributions while at Ohio State University (1957-1968) and Rice University (1968-1989), he was chief research scientist at the U.S. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (1989-1992), and he was executive director of the Science Directorate at the American Psychological Association (APA; 1992-1998). In 2012, he received the Raymond D. Fowler Award for Outstanding Contributions to APA, presented posthumously at the annual APA Convention. In all his roles, Bill made a strong and lasting connection with people. He sought always to leave things better than when he arrived.

Test publishers' perspective on "an updated meta-analysis": comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012).

Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau's (2012) meta-analysis of pre-employment integrity test results confirmed that such tests are meaningfully related to counterproductive work behavior. The article also offered some cautionary conclusions, which appear to stem from the limited scope of the authors' focus and the specific research procedures used. Issues discussed in this commentary include the following: (a) test publishers' provision of studies for meta-analytic consideration; (b) errors and questions in the coding of statistics from past studies; (c) debatable corrections for unreliable criterion measures; (d) exclusion of laboratory, contrasted-groups, unit-level, and time-series studies of counterproductive behavior; (e) under-emphasis on the prediction of counterproductive workplace behaviors compared with job performance, training outcomes, and turnover; (f) overlooking the industry practice of deploying integrity scales with other valid predictors of employee outcomes; (g) implication that integrity test publishers produce biased research results; (h) incomplete presentation of integrity tests' resistance to faking; and (i) omission of data indicating applicants' favorable response to integrity tests, the tests' lack of adverse impact, and the positive business impact of integrity testing. This commentary, therefore, offers an alternate perspective, addresses omissions and apparent inaccuracies, and urges a return to the use of diverse methodologies to evaluate the validity of integrity tests and other psychometric instruments.