Tests which measure "honesty and integrity" such as London House and true "personality tests" typically used as a diagnostic tool by psychologists and psychiatrists.
The former is legal and can be of some benefit providing proper allowances are made (e.g. born again Christians sometimes flunk because the test assumes nobody can be "that honest").
Diagnostic tests are a legal nightmare. They often ask intimately personal questions, delve into medical conditions, are subject to extreme confidentiality restrictions as per HIPAA, can only be properly interpreted by a qualified and licensed medical professional, etc.
In the early 1990's, an $8.5 dollar judgment was leveled against Dayton Hudson (the parent company of Target) for their use of the MMPI in screening potential employees. Businesses with more professional human resources departments immediately began to lose interest in these devices.
Since then, the Americans with Disabilities Act has cooled things off even more. The law made it illegal to use an employment screening device without proving it is beneficial in determining a person's capabilities to perform the "essential functions" of the job. This is almost always long, expensive and detailed exercise. Further, persons with psychological disorders are considered "protected categories of individuals" under the statute.
My best professional advice is to avoid companies who administer such tests. They probably do not have the sophistication or talent to survive over the long term.
Great information, thank you!
And yet there are validated tests that are available and have survivied the challenges.
And, frankly, it is the pervasive attitude that the employer exists to serve the needs of the worker wihtout respect to what the employer receives couped with the overabundance of litigation against employers that leads to the insanity of 3 month (or longer!) hiring processes.
If an employer hires a freak, they get sued. If the employer refuses to hire certain freaks, they get sued. If the employer hires a latent freak, whose freakishness is exacerbated by certain factors in said employers environment, they end up with someone of little or no value to the organization. If they try to do anything they can to avoid any of these scenarios, then people want to sue them or not work for them. Employers have both hands tied behind their backs when it comes to hiring.