Perceived Fairness of Drug Screening and Performance Testing as Methods for Detecting Performance Impairment

Abstract

Drug abuse is prevalent and impacts all aspects of society, including the workplace. Testing for impairment due to alcohol or other drug use has become commonplace in organizational settings. Despite potential problems with accuracy, the most commonly used method of screening is urinalysis. As drug testing becomes more common, concern over employees' rights to privacy and fairness of drug testing has also increased. Performance testing has been proposed as a solution to the problems associated with urinalysis, for jobs where eye-hand coordination is critical to job performance. Performance testing is based on the compensatory tracking task and involves correcting for the unpredictable movement of a visual stimulus on a computer screen. Although research suggests that urinalysis testing is perceived as fair in some situations (e.g., where need is high such as in safety-sensitive jobs), no research has been conducted which examines the perceived fairness of performance testing.

The purpose of the current research was to examine the effects of type of testing (urinalysis versus performance testing) and need for testing (high versus low accident history) on perceived fairness and invasion of privacy. In addition, the effects of fairness and invasiveness on the willingness to apply for a job in the company and acceptance of the screening policy was examined.

One-hundred adults participated in the study. Results indicated that urinalysis screening was perceived as more fair than performance testing. No effects of need (accident rate) were obtained for either fairness or invasion of privacy. Multiple regression analysis indicated that both fairness perceptions and invasion of privacy predicted willingness to apply for a job and acceptance of the policy. Implications of the results and suggestions for future research are discussed.