Computerized Workplace Fitness Assessment: Sensitivity vs Specificity

Abstract

Computerized fitness tests are used in workplace settings to measure for impairment resulting from factors such as environmental fatigue, toxic chemicals, environmental stresses, sleep disorders, high workload, illness, emotional upset, and others. One obstacle in implementing these instruments has been resistance from organizations due to concerns with accuracy of the tests and how the scores apply to the tasks in the workplace. Organizations are also often reluctant to adopt this type of instrument due to the potential for false positives in impaired performance. in order to develop a scoring method which addresses these issues by achieving substantial Specificity (>97%), while maintaining high Sensitivity, we employed computerized fitness tests to evaluate subjects with graded alcohol doses. By implementing Multiple Regression and Multiple Cutoff Analyses, we were able to achieve the desired levels of Specificity, while maintaining high Sensitivity.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alcohol

Alert

(1994). Alcohol-related impairment – A commentary by NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis, M. D. Rockville, MD: Office of Scientific Affairs, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anastasi

(1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Crouch

D. J.

Webb

D. O.

Buller

P. F.

Rollins

D. E.

(1989). A critical evaluation of the Utah Power and Light Company's substance abuse program: Absenteeism, accidents and costs. In Gust

S. W.

Walsh

J. M.

, Drugs in the workplace: Research and evaluation data (Research Monograph 91, pp. 169–193).

Gilliland

Schlegel

R. E.

(1995, January). Readiness-to-perform testing and the worker. Ergonomics in Design, 14–19.

Greenfield

P. A.

Karren

R. J.

Giacobbi

J. K.

(1989). Drug testing in the workplace: An overview of legal and philosophical issues. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 1–10.

Hanson

(1990). What employees say about drug testing. Personnel, 67, 33–36.

Kennedy

R. S.

Stanney

K. M.

Jones

M. B.

Drexler

J. M.

Compton

D. E.

(1999). Virtual environment adaptation assessment test battery. Phase II Final Report, Contract No. NAS9–97022. Houston, TX: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.

Kennedy

R. S.

Stanney

K. M.

Ordy

J. M.

Dunlap

W. P.

(1997). Virtual reality effects produced by head-mounted display (HMD) on human eye-hand coordination, postural equilibrium, and symptoms of cybersickness. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 23, 772.

10.

Kim

H. T.

Miller

J. C.

(1995). Statistical ability of the ReadyShift fitness-for-duty driving test. In Bittner

A. C.

Champney

P. C.

, Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety VII (pp. 501–508). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

11.

Murphy

K. R.

Thornton

G. C.

Prue

(1991). Influence of job characteristics on acceptability of employee drug testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447–453.

12.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1988). Medical review officer manual: A guide to evaluating urine drug analysis (DHHS No. ADM-88–1526). Rockville, MD: Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

13.

Silverstein

(1994, April 22). Corporations cool off enthusiasm for drug testing. Los Angeles Times.

14.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. (Third Edition) College Park, MD: Author

15.

Stanislaw

Todorov

(1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149.

16.

Swets

J. A.

(1988). Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley.

17.

Walsh

J. M.

(1988). Employee drug screening and detection of drug use by urinalysis (DHHS No. ADM-88–1442). Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.