Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 22–41 | Cite as

A critical review of the assumptions underlying drug testing

  • Deborah F. Crown
  • Joseph G. Rosse


Current drug screening programs are based on a set of assumptions: That drug use adversely affects productivity, that available tests are accurate and cost-effective means of detecting and reducing drug use, and that drug testing is legal. When analyzed in the light of available evidence, little support was found for these assumptions. Used properly, drug testing may play a role in the overall management of employee performance; used improperly, it represents a profound threat to individual rights. Recommendations for additional research and for employers planning to use drug screening are offered.


Social Psychology Screening Program Additional Research Critical Review Social Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amalgamated Transit Union v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, L.A. Superct., No. C628562 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. Bureau of National Affairs Special Report (1986).Alcohol and drugs in the workplace. Rockville, MD: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bloch, J. (1986). So what? Everybody's doing it.Forbes, August, 102.Google Scholar
  4. Boone, J., Hansen, H., Hearn, T., Lewis, S. & Dudley, D. (1982). Laboratory evaluation and assistance efforts: Mailed, on-site and blind proficiency testing surveys conducted by the centers for disease control.American Journal of Public Health, 72, 1364–1368.Google Scholar
  5. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 117 LRRM 2739 (D. Montana, 1984).Google Scholar
  6. Brown, T.S., Jones, J.W., Terris, W. & Steffy, B.D. (1987). The impact of pre-employment integrity testing on employee turnover and inventory shrinkage losses.Journal of Business and Psychology, 2(2), 136–145.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, F.S. (1985). The ruckus over medical testing.Fortune, August, 57.Google Scholar
  8. Clinical chemists group surveys drug testing. (1987).Chemical and Engineering News, June 1, 6.Google Scholar
  9. Dakis, C., Pottash, A., Annitto, W. & Gold, M. (1983). Urine testing for detection of marijuana: An advisory.Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 32.Google Scholar
  10. Evans v. Casey, USDC EPa, No. 86-1217 (Penn. 1986).Google Scholar
  11. Ford, R. & McLaughlin, F. (1981). Employee assistance programs: A descriptive survey of ASPA members.Personnel Administrator, 26(9), 29–35.Google Scholar
  12. Geidt, T. (1985) Drug and alcohol abuse in the work place: Balancing employer and employee rights.Employee Relations Law Journal, 11(2), 181–205.Google Scholar
  13. Gomez-Mejia, L. & Balkin, D. (1987). Dimensions and characteristics of effective drug testing programs.Personnel Psychology, 40, 745–763.Google Scholar
  14. Gottheil, E., Caddy, G. & Austin, D. (1976). Fallibility of urine drug screens in monitoring methadone programs.Journal of the American Medical Association, 236, 1035–1038.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, H., Caudill, S. & Boone, J. (1985). Crisis in drug testing.Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 2382.Google Scholar
  16. Hosty, R. (1985). Drug abuse in industry: What does it cost and what can be done?Security Management, October, 53–58.Google Scholar
  17. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co. v. Wherry, 548 S.W. 2d 743 (Ct. Civ. App. Texas 1977).Google Scholar
  18. How drug testing can help addicts. (1987).Resource, Feb., 2.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, J.W. (1979). Employee deviance: Attitudinal correlates of theft and on-the-job alcohol abuse. Presented at the Fifth Annual Convention of the Society of Police and Criminal Psychology, Chicago, November.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, J.W. (1980). Attitudinal correlates of employees' deviance: Theft, alcohol use, and nonprescribed drug use.Psychological Reports, 47, 71–77.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, J.W. & Terris, W. (1983). Personality correlates of theft and drug abuse among job applicants.Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the 16 PF Test, 85–94.Google Scholar
  22. Krueger, R.A. (1985).Validity and reliability of Hazelden treatment follow-up data. Center City, MN: Hazelden.Google Scholar
  23. Lehr, R. & Middlebrooks, D. (1985). Work-place privacy issues and employer screening policies.Employee Relations Law Journal, Winter, 407–421.Google Scholar
  24. Lovvorn v. City of Chattanooga, No. CIV-1-86-389 (Tenn. 1986).Google Scholar
  25. Madonia, J. (1984). Managerial responses to alcohol and drug abuse among employees.Personnel Administrator, 29(6), 134–139.Google Scholar
  26. McDonnel v. Hunter, USDC No. 84-71-B (Iowa 1985).Google Scholar
  27. McGaffey, T. (1978). New horizons in organizational stress prevention approaches.Personnel Administrator, 23, 26–32.Google Scholar
  28. Milbourne, G. (1984). Alcoholism, drug abuse, and job stress: What small businesses can do.American Journal of Small Business, Spring, 36–48.Google Scholar
  29. Miners, I.A., Nykodym, N. & Samerdyke-Traband, D.M. (1987). Put drug detection to the test.Personnel Journal, 66, 91–97.Google Scholar
  30. Muczyk, J. & Heshizer, B. (1986). Managing in an era of substance abuse.Personnel Administrator, 31, 91–105.Google Scholar
  31. Murphy, K.R. (1987). Detecting infrequent deception.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 611–614.Google Scholar
  32. Myers, D.W. (1984). Measuring cost effectiveness of EAPs.Risk Management, November, 56–61.Google Scholar
  33. National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab, 649 F.Supp 380 (E.D.La 1986).Google Scholar
  34. New on the spot drug test gets plaudits, skepticism. (1986).The National Report on Substance Abuse,1(5), 3.Google Scholar
  35. One-quarter of firms said to screen employees. (1986).The National Report on Substance Abuse,1(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  36. Penny v. Kennedy, No. CIV-1-86-417, USDC (ETenn. 1986).Google Scholar
  37. President's Commission of Organized Crime. (1986).America's habit and drug abuse, drug trafficking, and organized crime: Report to the President and the Attorney General (March, 1986). Washington, DC: President's Commission on Organized Crime.Google Scholar
  38. Psychemedics. (1987).A very sensitive test for a very sensitive issue. Santa Monica, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Railway Labor Executives Association et al v. The Long Island Railroad Co., USDC CV-86-2330 (ENY).Google Scholar
  40. Ray, J. (1972). Drug abuse in business: Part of a larger problem.Personnel, 49, 15–21.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, R. & Colbert, J. (1975) Drug abuse and organizational response: A review and evaluation.Personnel Journal, 54, 266–271.Google Scholar
  42. Rosen, T. (1987).Using physiological measures in job selection: The role of the I/O psychologist. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, April.Google Scholar
  43. Rothstein, M. (1985/1986). Screening workers for drugs: A legal and ethical framework.Employee Relations Law Journal, 11(3), 422–436.Google Scholar
  44. Taking drugs on the job. (1983, August 22).Newsweek, 55.Google Scholar
  45. Turner v. Fraternal Order of Police, No. 83-1213 (CA DC, 1985).Google Scholar
  46. Wollett, D. (1983/1984). What an arbitrator looks for in management discharge cases.Employee Relations Law Journal, 525.Google Scholar
  47. Wynn, P. (1979). Arbitration standards in drug discharge cases.Arbitration Journal, 34, 19.Google Scholar
  48. Zeidenberg, J., Bourdon, D. & Nahas, G. (1977). Marijuana intoxication by passive inhalation: Documentation by detection of urinary metabolites.American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah F. Crown
    • 1
  • Joseph G. Rosse
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations