Fluent Essays

See chapter 11 from text attached, the articles by Baez (2013), Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007), Morgeson, Campion, and Dipboye (2007), Peterson, Griffith, Isaacson, O’Connell, and Mangos (2011), and the Maximizing Human Potential Within Organizations, Building Better Organizations, and Top Minds and Bottom Lines brochures on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website? Evaluate the MMP1-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. E. and Ms. F. That are attached. Take on the role of an industrial-organizational psychologist recently awarded a contract to evaluate potential police candidates. The purpose of the evaluations is to determine the psychological capability of the applicants to be certified as police officers in your state of Louisiana. The applicants you are examining are applying for certification and will be vested with a position of public trust. If certified as police officers, the individuals will likely be required at some future time to exercise significant physical strength and undergo high emotional stress. As the examining psychologist, you are required to comment on the applicants’ social comprehension, judgment, impulse control, potential for violence, and/or any psychological traits that might render her or him psychologically at risk to be certified. The state requires that each applicant’s examination include the following elements? Interview and History: The psychologist must personally interview the applicant and provide a summary of the applicant’s personal, educational, employment, and criminal history? Required Personality Test: The applicant shall be administered any current standard form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) by the licensed psychologist who interviewed the individual, or by a paraprofessional employed by and under the direct control and supervision of that licensed psychologist? Other Testing Methods: If (after conducting the required test) the licensed psychologist is unable to certify the applicant’s psychological capability or risk to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer, the psychologist is directed to personally employ whatever other psychological measuring instrument(s) and/or technique(s) deemed necessary to form her or his professional opinion. The use of any such instrument(s) and/or technique(s) requires a full and complete written explanation to the commission? For the purposes of this evaluation, assume the interview and history information reported to you by Mr. E. and Ms. F. is unremarkable and that neither candidate communicated anything to you during the interview that raised concerns about her or his capabilities to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Review the MMP1-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. E. and Ms. F. and evaluate the professional interpretation of this testing and assessment data from an ethical perspective. Begin by communicating your decisions about Mr. E. and Ms. F., and clearly state in your first sentence whether you are recommending certification or communicating reservations? Begin the section on each candidate with one of the following statements, identifying each candidate by name? To recommend certification: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Follow the above statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the available MMPI-3 test results. Be specific and include relevant information from the interpretive report to justify your decision. Follow the rationale with a brief comparison of at least one additional personality test you might consider administering beyond the MMPI-3 that would be valid and reliable for the purposes of evaluating police candidates. Debate the pros and cons of the potential use of the other assessment(s). Explain any ethical implications that may arise from the interpretation of this data? To communicate reservations: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically at risk for exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Follow the above statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the available MMPI-3 test results. Be specific and include relevant information from the interpretive report to justify your decision. Follow the rationale with a brief comparison of at least one additional personality test you might consider administering beyond the MMPI-3 that would be valid and reliable for the purposes of evaluating police candidates. Debate the pros and cons of the potential use of the other assessment(s). Explain any ethical implications that may arise from the interpretation of this data? Baez, H. B. (2013). Personality tests in employment selection: Use with caution. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/  Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2020a). Case Description: Mr. E - Police Candidate Interpretative Report [PDF]. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/ global/clinical/us/assets/mmpi-3/mmpi-3-police-candidate-interpretive-report-male.pdf Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2020b). Case Description: Ms. F - Police Candidate Interpretative Report [PDF]. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/ global/clinical/us/assets/mmpi-3/mmpi-3-police-candidate-interpretive-report-female.pdf Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Chapter 11: Industrial, Occupational, and Career Assessment Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5). Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are We Getting Fooled Again? Coming to Terms with Limitations in the Use of Personality Tests for Personnel Selection. Personnel Psychology, 60(4). https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1111/ j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x Peterson, M., Griffith, R., Isaacson, J., O’Connell, M., & Mangos, P. (2011). Applicant Faking, Social Desirability, and the Prediction of Counterproductive Work Behaviors. Human Performance, 24(3), 270–290. https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/files/16447479/download?verifier=t85ancyAiU9u3qnbNaZDNtwFm7Ej2ZhrlSNKMktX&wrap=1 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/files/16447617/download?verifier=MLl4EW9wV8HjTemu4nXZ3W50IcsARXOwIW16VJCe&wrap=1 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/files/16447617/download?verifier=MLl4EW9wV8HjTemu4nXZ3W50IcsARXOwIW16VJCe&wrap=1 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/mmpi-3/mmpi-3-police-candidate-interpretive-report-male.pdf https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/mmpi-3/mmpi-3-police-candidate-interpretive-report-male.pdf https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/mmpi-3/mmpi-3-police-candidate-interpretive-report-male.pdf https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/files/16447597/download?verifier=lgZfpGFDb7fAAUolShCrf0PTtAXq97mLm7i75i7d&wrap=1 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/files/16447597/download?verifier=lgZfpGFDb7fAAUolShCrf0PTtAXq97mLm7i75i7d&wrap=1 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/external_tools/retrieve?display=borderless&url=https\%3A\%2F\%2Fcontent.uagc.edu\%2Flti\%3Fbookcode\%3DGregory.8055.17.1 https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x CHAPTER 11 Industrial, Occupational, and Career Assessment TOPIC 11A Industrial and Organizational Assessment 11.1 The Role of Testing in Personnel Selection 11.2 Autobiographical Data 11.3 The Employment Interview 11.4 Cognitive Ability Tests 11.5 Personality Tests 11.6 Paper-and-Pencil Integrity Tests 11.7 Work Sample and Situational Exercises 11.8 Appraisal of Work Performance 11.9 Approaches to Performance Appraisal 11.10 Sources of Error in Performance Appraisal In this chapter we explore the specialized applications of testing within two distinctive environments—occupational settings and vocational settings. Although disparate in many respects, these two fields of assessment share essential features. For example, legal guidelines exert a powerful and constraining influence upon the practice of testing in both arenas. Moreover, issues of empirical validation of methods are especially pertinent in occupational and areas of practice. In Topic 11A, Industrial and Organizational Assessment, we review the role of psychological tests in making decisions about personnel such as hiring, placement, promotion, and evaluation. In Topic 11B, Assessment for Career Development in a Global Economy, we analyze the unique challenges encountered by vocational psychologists who provide career guidance and assessment. Of course, relevant tests are surveyed and catalogued throughout. But more important, we focus upon the special issues and challenges encountered within these distinctive milieus. Industrial and organizational psychology (I/O psychology) is the subspecialty of psychology that deals with behavior in work situations (Borman, Ilgen, Klimoski, & Weiner, 2003). In its broadest sense, I/O psychology includes diverse applications in business, advertising, and the military. For example, corporations typically consult I/O psychologists to help design and evaluate hiring procedures; businesses may ask I/O psychologists to appraise the effectiveness of advertising; and military leaders rely heavily upon I/O psychologists in the testing and placement of recruits. Psychological testing in the service of decision making about personnel is, thus, a prominent focus of this profession. Of course, specialists in I/O psychology possess broad skills and often handle many corporate responsibilities not previously mentioned. Nonetheless, there is no denying the centrality of assessment to their profession. We begin our review of assessment in the occupational arena by surveying the role of testing in personnel selection. This is followed by a discussion of ways that psychological measurement is used in the appraisal of work performance. 11.1 THE ROLE OF TESTING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION Complexities of Personnel Selection Based upon the assumption that psychological tests and assessments can provide valuable information about potential job performance, many businesses, corporations, and military settings have used test scores and assessment results for personnel selection. As Guion (1998) has noted, I/O research on personnel selection has emphasized criterion-related validity as opposed to content or construct validity. These other approaches to validity are certainly relevant but usually take a back seat to criterion- related validity, which preaches that current assessment results must predict the future criterion of job performance. From the standpoint of criterion-related validity, the logic of personnel selection is seductively simple. Whether in a large corporation or a small business, those who select employees should use tests or assessments that have documented, strong correlations with the criterion of job performance, and then hire the individuals who obtain the highest test scores or show the strongest assessment results. What could be simpler than that? Unfortunately, the real-world application of employment selection procedures is fraught with psychometric complexities and legal pitfalls. The psychometric intricacies arise, in large measure, from the fact that job behavior is rarely simple, unidimensional behavior. There are some exceptions (such as assembly-line production) but the general rule in our postindustrial society is that job behavior is complex, multidimensional behavior. Even jobs that seem simple may be highly complex. For example, consider what is required for effective performance in the delivery of the U.S. mail. The individual who delivers your mail six days a week must do more than merely place it in your mailbox. He or she must accurately sort mail on the run, interpret and enforce government regulations about package size, manage pesky and even dangerous animals, recognize and avoid physical dangers, and exercise effective interpersonal skills in dealing with the public, to cite just a few of the complexities of this position. Personnel selection is, therefore, a fuzzy, conditional, and uncertain task. Guion (1991) has highlighted the difficulty in predicting complex behavior from simple tests. For one thing, complex behavior is, in part, a function of the situation. This means that even an optimal selection approach may not be valid for all candidates. Quite clearly, personnel selection is not a simple matter of administering tests and consulting cutoff scores. We must also acknowledge the profound impact of legal and regulatory edicts upon I/O testing practices. Given that such practices may have weighty consequences—determining who is hired or promoted, for example—it is not surprising to learn that I/O testing practices are rigorously constrained by legal precedents and regulatory mandates. These topics are reviewed in Topic 12A, Psychological Testing and the Law. Approaches to Personnel Selection Acknowledging that the interview is a widely used form of personnel assessment, it is safe to conclude that psychological assessment is almost a universal practice in hiring decisions. Even by a narrow definition that includes only paper-and-pencil measures, at least two-thirds of the companies in the United States engage in personnel testing (Schmitt & Robertson, 1990). For purposes of personnel selection, the I/O psychologist may recommend one or more of the following: • Autobiographical data • Employment interview • Cognitive ability tests • Personality, temperament, and motivation tests • Paper-and-pencil integrity tests • Sensory, physical, and dexterity tests • Work sample and situational tests We turn now to a brief survey of typical tests and assessment approaches within each of these categories. We close this topic with a discussion of legal issues in personnel testing. 11.2 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL DATA According to Owens (1976), application forms that request personal and work history as well as demographic data such as age and marital status have been used in industry since at least 1894. Objective or scorable autobiographical data— sometimes called biodata—are typically secured by means of a structured form variously referred to as a biographical information blank, biographical data form, application blank, interview guide, individual background survey, or similar device. Although the lay public may not recognize these devices as true tests with predictive power, I/O psychologists have known for some time that biodata furnish an exceptionally powerful basis for the prediction of employee performance (Cascio, 1976; Ghiselli, 1966; Hunter & Hunter, 1984). An important milestone in the biodata approach is the publication of the Biodata Handbook, a thorough survey of the use of biographical information in selection and the prediction of performance (Stokes, Mumford, & Owens, 1994). The rationale for the biodata approach is that future work-related behavior can be predicted from past choices and accomplishments. Biodata have predictive power because certain character traits that are essential for success also are stable and enduring. The consistently ambitious youth with accolades and accomplishments in high school is likely to continue this pattern into adulthood. Thus, the job applicant who served as editor of the high school newspaper—and who answers a biodata item to this effect—is probably a better candidate for corporate management than the applicant who reports no extracurricular activities on a biodata form. The Nature of Biodata Biodata items usually call for “factual” data; however, items that tap attitudes, feelings, and value judgments are sometimes included. Except for demographic data such as age and marital status, biodata items always refer to past accomplishments and events. Some examples of biodata items are listed in Table 11.1. Once biodata are collected, the I/O psychologist must devise a means for predicting job performance from this information. The most common strategy is a form of empirical keying not unlike that used in personality testing. From a large sample of workers who are already hired, the I/O psychologist designates a successful group and an unsuccessful group, based on performance, tenure, salary, or supervisor ratings. Individual biodata items are then contrasted for these two groups to determine which items most accurately discriminate between successful and unsuccessful workers. Items that are strongly discriminative are assigned large weights in the scoring scheme. New applicants who respond to items in the keyed direction, therefore, receive high scores on the biodata instrument and are predicted to succeed. Cross validation of the scoring scheme on a second sample of successful and unsuccessful workers is a crucial step in guaranteeing the validity of the biodata selection method. Readers who wish to pursue the details of empirical scoring methods for biodata instruments should consult Murphy and Davidshofer (2004), Mount, Witt, and Barrick (2000), and Stokes and Cooper (2001). TABLE 11.1 Examples of Biodata Questions How long have you lived at your present address? What is your highest educational degree? How old were you when you obtained your first paying job? How many books (not work related) did you read last month? At what age did you get your driver’s license? In high school, did you hold a class office? How punctual are you in arriving at work? What job do you think you will hold in 10 years? How many hours do you watch television in a typical week? Have you ever been fired from a job? How many hours a week do you spend on The Validity of Biodata The validity of biodata has been surveyed by several reviewers, with generally positive findings (Breaugh, 2009; Stokes et al., 1994; Stokes & Cooper, 2004). An early study by Cascio (1976) is typical of the findings. He used a very simple biodata instrument—a weighted combination of 10 application blank items—to predict turnover for female clerical personnel in a medium-sized insurance company. The cross- validated correlations between biodata score and length of tenure were .58 for minorities and .56 for nonminorities.1 Drakeley et al. (1988) compared biodata and cognitive ability tests as predictors of training success. Biodata scores possessed the same predictive validity as the cognitive tests. Furthermore, when added to the regression equation, the biodata information improved the predictive accuracy of the cognitive tests. In an extensive research survey, Reilly and Chao (1982) compared eight selection procedures as to validity and adverse impact on minorities. The procedures were biodata, peer evaluation, interviews, self-assessments, reference checks, academic achievement, expert judgment, and projective techniques. Noting that properly standardized ability tests provide the fairest and most valid selection procedure, Reilly and Chao (1982) concluded that only biodata and peer evaluations had validities substantially equal to those of standardized tests. For example, in the prediction of sales productivity, the average validity coefficient of biodata was a very healthy .62. Certain cautions need to be mentioned with respect to biodata approaches in personnel selection. Employers may be prohibited by law from asking questions about age, race, sex, religion, and other personal issues—even when such biodata can be shown empirically to predict job performance. Also, even though the incidence of faking is very low, there is no doubt that shrewd respondents can falsify results in a favorable direction. For example, Schmitt and Kunce (2002) addressed the concern that some examinees might distort their answers to biodata items in a socially desirable direction. These researchers compared the scores obtained when examinees were asked to elaborate their biodata responses versus when they were not. Requiring elaborated answers reduced the scores on biodata items; that is, it appears that respondents were more truthful when asked to provide corroborating details to their written responses. Recently, Levashina, Morgeson, and Campion (2012) proved the same point in a large scale, high-stakes selection project with 16,304 applicants for employment. Biodata constituted a significant portion of the selection procedure. The researchers used the response elaboration technique (RET), which obliges job applicants to provide written elaborations of their responses. Perhaps an example will help. A naked, unadorned biodata question might ask: • How many times in the last 12 months did you develop novel solutions to a work problem in your area of responsibility? Most likely, a higher number would indicate greater creativity and empirically predict superior work productivity. The score on this item would be combined with others to produce an overall biodata score used in personnel selection. But notice that nothing prevents the respondent from exaggeration or outright lying. Now, consider the original question with the addition of response elaboration: • How many times in the last 12 months did you develop novel solutions to a work problem in your area of responsibility? • For each circumstance, please provide specific details as to the problem and your solution. Levashina et al. (2012) found that using the RET technique produced more honest and realistic biodata scores. Further, for those items possessing the potential for external verification, responses were even more realistic. The researchers conclude that RET decreases faking because it increases accountability. As with any measurement instrument, biodata items will need periodic restandardization. Finally, a potential drawback to the biodata approach is that, by its nature, this method captures the organizational status quo and might, therefore, squelch innovation. Becker and Colquitt (1992) discuss precautions in the development of biodata forms. The use of biodata in personnel selection appears to be on the rise. Some corporations rely on biodata almost to the exclusion of other approaches in screening applicants. The software giant Google is a case in point. In years past, the company used traditional methods such as hiring candidates from top schools who earned the best grades. But that tactic now is used rarely in industry. Instead, many corporations like Google are moving toward automated systems that collect biodata from the many thousands of applicants processed each year. Using online surveys, these companies ask applicants to provide personal details about accomplishments, attitudes, and behaviors as far back as high school. Questions can be quite detailed, such as whether the applicant has ever published a book, received a patent, or started a club. Formulas are then used to compute a score from 0 to 100, designed to predict the degree to fit with corporate culture (Ottinger & Kurzon, 2007). The system works well for Google, which claims to have only a 4 percent turnover rate. There is little doubt, then, that purely objective biodata information can predict aspects of job performance with fair accuracy. However, employers are perhaps more likely to rely upon subjective information such as interview impressions when making decisions about hiring. We turn now to research on the validity of the employment interview in the selection process. 1The curious reader may wish to know which 10 biodata items could possess such predictive power. The items were age, marital status, children’s age, education, tenure on previous job, previous salary, friend or relative in company, location of residence, home ownership, and length of time at present address. Unfortunately, Cascio (1976) does not reveal the relative weights or direction of scoring for the items. 11.3 THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW The employment interview is usually only one part of the evaluation process, but many administrators regard it as the vital make-or- break component of hiring. It is not unusual for companies to interview from 5 to 20 individuals for each person hired! Considering the importance of the interview and its huge costs to industry and the professions, it is not surprising to learn that thousands of studies address the reliability and validity of the interview. We can only highlight a few trends here; more detailed reviews can be found in Conway, Jako, and Goodman (1995), Huffcutt (2007), Guion (1998), and Schmidt and Zimmerman (2004). Early studies of interview reliability were quite sobering. In various studies and reviews, reliability was typically assessed by correlating evaluations of different interviewers who had access to the same job candidates (Wagner, 1949; Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965). The interrater reliability from dozens of these early studies was typically in the mid-.50s, much too low to provide accurate assessments of job candidates. This research also revealed that interviewers were prone to halo bias and other distorting influences upon their perceptions of candidates. Halo bias—discussed in the next topic—is the tendency to rate a candidate high or low on all dimensions because of a global impression. Later, researchers discovered that interview reliability could be increased substantially if the interview was jointly conducted by a panel instead of a single interviewer (Landy, 1996). In addition, structured interviews in which each candidate was asked the same questions by each interviewer also proved to be much more reliable than unstructured interviews (Borman, Hanson, & Hedge, 1997; Campion, Pursell, & Brown, 1988). In these studies, reliabilities in the .70s and higher were found. Research on validity of the interview has followed the same evolutionary course noted for reliability: Early research that examined unstructured interviews was quite pessimistic, while later research using structured approaches produced more promising findings. In these studies, interview validity was typically assessed by correlating interview judgments with some measure of on-the-job performance. Early studies of interview validity yielded almost uniformly dismal results, with typical validity coefficients hovering in the mid-.20s (Arvey & Campion, 1982). Mindful that interviews are seldom used in isolation, early researchers also investigated incremental validity, which is the potential increase in validity when the interview is used in conjunction with other information. These studies were predicated on the optimistic assumption that the interview would contribute positively to candidate evaluation when used alongside objective test scores and background data. Unfortunately, the initial findings were almost entirely unsupportive (Landy, 1996). In some instances, attempts to prove incremental validity of the interview demonstrated just the opposite, what might be called decremental validity. For example, Kelly and Fiske (1951) established that interview information actually decreased the validity of graduate student evaluations. In this early and classic study, the task was to predict the academic performance of more than 500 graduate students in psychology. Various combinations of credentials (a form of biodata), objective test scores, and interview were used as the basis for clinical predictions of academic performance. The validity coefficients are reported in Table 11.2. The reader will notice that credentials alone provided a much better basis for prediction than credentials plus a one- hour interview. The best predictions were based upon credentials and objective test scores; adding a two-hour interview to this information actually decreased the accuracy of predictions. These findings highlighted the superiority of actuarial prediction (based on empirically derived formulas) over clinical prediction (based on subjective impressions). We pursue the actuarial versus clinical debate in the last chapter of this text. Studies using carefully structured interviews, including situational interviews, provide a more positive picture of interview validity (Borman, Hanson, & Hedge, 1997; Maurer & Fay, 1988; Schmitt & Robertson, 1990). When the findings are corrected for restriction of range and unreliability of job performance ratings, the mean validity coefficient for structured interviews turns out to be an impressive .63 (Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988). A meta-analysis by Conway, Jako, and Goodman (1995) concluded that the upper limit for the validity coefficient of structured interviews was .67, whereas for unstructured interviews the validity coefficient was only .34. Additional reasons for preferring structured interviews include their legal defensibility in the event of litigation (Williamson, Campion, Malo, and others, 1997) and, surprisingly, their minimal bias across different racial groups of applicants (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998). TABLE 11.2 Validity Coefficients for Ratings Based on Various Combinations of Information Basis for Rating Correlation with Credentials alone 0.26 Credentials and one-hour interview 0.13 Credentials and objective test scores 0.36 Credentials, test scores, and two-hour interview 0.32 Source: Based on data in Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. In order to reach acceptable levels of reliability and validity, structured interviews must be designed with painstaking care. Consider the protocol used by Motowidlo et al. (1992) in their research on structured interviews for management and marketing positions in eight telecommunications companies. Their interview format was based upon a careful analysis of critical incidents in marketing and management. Prospective employees were asked a set of standard questions about how they had handled past situations similar to these critical incidents. Interviewers were trained to ask discretionary probing questions for details about how the applicants handled these situations. Throughout, the interviewers took copious notes. Applicants were then rated on scales anchored with behavioral illustrations. Finally, these ratings were combined to yield a total interview score used in selection decisions. In summary, under carefully designed conditions, the interview can provide a reliable and valid basis for personnel selection. However, as noted by Schmitt and Robertson (1990), the prerequisite conditions for interview validity are not always available. Guion (1998) has expressed the same point: A large body of research on interviewing has, in my opinion, given too little practical information about how to structure an interview, how to conduct it, and how to use it as an assessment device. I think I know from the research that (a) interviews can be valid, (b) for validity they require structuring and standardization, (c) that structure, like many other things, can be carried too far, (d) that without carefully planned structure (and maybe even with it) interviewers talk too much, and (e) that the interviews made routinely in nearly every organization could be vastly improved if interviewers were aware of and used these conclusions. There is more to be learned and applied. (p. 624) The essential problem is that each interviewer may evaluate only a small number of applicants, so that standardization of interviewer ratings is not always realistic. While the interview is potentially valid as a selection technique, in its common, unstructured application there is probably substantial reason for concern. Why are interviews used? If the typical, unstructured interview is so unreliable and ineffectual a basis for job candidate evaluation, why do administrators continue to value interviews so highly? In their review of the employment interview, Arvey and Campion (1982) outline several reasons for the persistence of the interview, including practical considerations such as the need to sell the candidate on the job, and social reasons such as the susceptibility of interviewers to the illusion of personal validity. Others have emphasized the importance of the interview for assessing a good fit between applicant and organization (Adams, Elacqua, & Colarelli, 1994; Latham & Skarlicki, 1995). It is difficult to imagine that most employers would ever eliminate entirely the interview from the screening and selection process. After all, the interview does serve the simple human need of meeting the persons who might be hired. However, based on 50 years worth of research, it is evident that biodata and objective tests often provide a more powerful basis for candidate evaluation and selection than unstructured interviews. One interview component that has received recent attention is the impact of the handshake on subsequent ratings of job candidates. Stewart, Dustin, Barrick, and Darnold (2008) used simulated hiring interviews to investigate the commonly held conviction that a firm handshake bears a critical nonverbal influence on impressions formed during the employment interview. Briefly, 98 undergraduates underwent realistic job interviews during which their handshakes were surreptitiously rated on 5-point scales for grip strength, completeness, duration, and vigor; degree of eye contact during the handshake also was rated. Independent ratings were completed at different times by five individuals involved in the process. Real human-resources professionals conducted the interviews and then offered simulated hiring recommendations. The professionals shook hands with the candidates but were not asked to provide handshake ratings because this would have cued them to the purposes of the study. This is the barest outline of this complex investigation. The big picture that emerged was that the quality of the handshake was positively related to hiring recommendations. Further, women benefited more than men from a strong handshake. The researchers conclude their study with these thoughts: The handshake is thought to have originated in medieval Europe as a way for kings and knights to show that they did not intend to harm each other and possessed no concealed weapons (Hall & Hall, 1983). The results presented in this study show that this age-old social custom has an important place in modern business interactions. Although the handshake may appear to be a business formality, it can indeed communicate critical information and influence interviewer assessments. (p. 1145) Perhaps this study will provide an impetus for additional investigation of this important component of the job interview. Barrick, Swider, and Stewart (2010) make the general case that initial impressions formed in the first few seconds or minutes of the employment interview significantly influence the final outcomes. They cite the social psychology literature to argue that initial impressions are nearly instinctual and based on evolutionary mechanisms that aid survival. Handshake, smile, grooming, manner of dress— the interviewer gauges these as favorable (or not) almost instantaneously. The purpose of their study was to examine whether these “fast and frugal” judgments formed in the first few seconds or minutes even before the “real” interview begins affect interview outcomes. Participants for their research were 189 undergraduate students in a program for professional accountants. The students were pre- interviewed for just 2-3 minutes by trained graduate students for purposes of rapport building, before a more thorough structured mock interview was conducted. After the brief pre-interview, the graduate interviewers filled out a short rating scale on liking for the candidate, the candidate’s competence, and perceived “personal” similarity. The interviewers then conducted a full structured interview and filled out ratings. Weeks after these mock interviews, participants engaged in real interviews with four major accounting firms (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers) to determine whether they would receive an offer of an internship. Just over half of the students received an offer. Candidates who made better first impressions during the initial pre-interview (that lasted just 2-3 minutes) … Cornell University ILR School [email protected] Cornell HR Review 1-26-2013 Personality Tests in Employment Selection: Use With Caution H. Beau Baez Charlotte School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr Part of the Human Resources Management Commons, and the Labor Relations Commons Thank you for downloading an article from [email protected] . Support this valuable resource today! This Article is brought to you for free and open access by [email protected] . It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell HR Review by an authorized administrator of [email protected] . For more information, please contact [email protected] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/633?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/635?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages https://securelb.imodules.com/s/1717/alumni/index.aspx?sid=1717&gid=2&pgid=403&cid=1031&dids=50.254&bledit=1&appealcode=OTX0OLDC mailto:[email protected] Personality Tests in Employment Selection: Use With Caution Abstract [Excerpt] Many employers utilize personality tests in the employment selection process to identify people who have more than just the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in their jobs.[1] If anecdotes are to be believed—Dilbert must be getting at something or the cartoon strip would not be so popular—the work place is full of people whose personalities are a mismatch for the positions they hold. Psychology has the ability to measure personality and emotional intelligence (“EQ”), which can provide employers with data to use in the selection process. “Personality refers to an individual’s unique constellation of consistent behavioral traits”[2] and “emotional intelligence consists of the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion.”[3] By using a scientific approach in hiring, employers can increase their number of successful employees. Keywords HR Review, Human Resources, employment selection, personality tests Disciplines Human Resources Management | Labor Relations Comments Suggested Citation: Baez H. (2013, January 26). Personality tests in employment selection: Use with caution. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved [insert date] from Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/ 59 This article is available at [email protected]: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/59 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/59 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/59 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/59?utm_source=digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu\%2Fchrr\%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages Cornell University ILR School [email protected] 1-26-2013 Personality Tests in Employment Selection: Use With Caution H. Beau Baez Personality Tests in Employment Selection: Use With Caution Abstract Keywords Disciplines Comments www.cornellhrreview.org/...Personality-Testing.pdf Personality Measurement, Faking, and Employment Selection Joyce Hogan, Paul Barrett, and Robert Hogan Hogan Assessment Systems Real job applicants completed a 5-factor model personality measure as part of the job application process. They were rejected; 6 months later they (n � 5,266) reapplied for the same job and completed the same personality measure. Results indicated that 5.2\% or fewer improved their scores on any scale on the 2nd occasion; moreover, scale scores were as likely to change in the negative direction as the positive. Only 3 applicants changed scores on all 5 scales beyond a 95\% confidence threshold. Construct validity of the personality scales remained intact across the 2 administrations, and the same structural model provided an acceptable fit to the scale score matrix on both occasions. For the small number of applicants whose scores changed beyond the standard error of measurement, the authors found the changes were systematic and predictable using measures of social skill, social desirability, and integrity. Results suggest that faking on personality measures is not a significant problem in real-world selection settings. Keywords: personality measurement, faking, impression management, personnel selection There are two major criticisms of the use of personality mea- sures for employee selection, both of which are, in principle, amenable to empirical resolution. The first is that personality measures are poor predictors of job performance (Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005). This criticism persists despite evidence showing that well-constructed measures of personality reliably predict job performance, but with no adverse impact (J. Hogan & Holland, 2003; R. Hogan, 2005). The second criticism is that job applicants distort their scores by faking. Beginning with Kelly, Miles, and Terman (1936), the vast literature on this topic refers to faking with a variety of terms. We use the term impression management to refer to the process of controlling one’s behavior during any form of social interaction, including responding to inventory items. There are two views regarding how impression management affects personality measures. One view is that people engage in impression management on specific occasions—for example, when applying for a job—and doing so inevitably degrades test validity. The second view is that, during social interaction, most people behave in ways that are intended to convey a positive impression of themselves (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). They do this whether reacting to questions in an employment inter- view, to assessment center exercises, or to items on a personality inventory—and this impression management has minimal conse- quences for predictive validity. Hough and Furnham (2003) and Smith and Robie (2004) have carefully reviewed the vast and complex faking literature; their reviews can be summarized in terms of four points. First, when instructed, some people can alter their personality scores as com- pared with their scores when not so instructed (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Mersman & Shultz, 1998). In addition, mean score differences are larger in laboratory faking studies than in applicant studies (Hough et al., 1990). Hough and Furnham concluded that impression manage- ment has minimal impact on employment outcomes, although Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, and Thornton (2003) and Rosse, Stecher, Miller, and Levin (1998) disagreed. Second, in several studies researchers have concluded that the base rate of faking in the job application process is minimal (Dunnette, McCartney, Carlson, & Kirchner, 1962; Hough, 1998; Hough & Ones, 2001). Unfortunately, it is hard to know how to assess the base rate of faking—a problem that may be logically intractable. One potential solution would be to compare a person’s score on the same measure twice, the first time when applying for a job and the second time having failed the measure on the first occasion. Third, impression management seems not to affect criterion- related validity. Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of correlations between personality measures and job performance, after partialing out social desirability from the predictors. They concluded that social desirability does not mod- erate the validities of personality measures in real-world settings, and they recommended against correcting for impression manage- ment in personnel selection. Ellingson, Smith, and Sackett (2001) and Schmitt and Oswald (2006) have echoed these conclusions. Similarly, Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, and Angleitner (2000) noted that using validity scales to correct possible biases in per- sonality scores ignores the extent to which high scores may actu- ally be valid. They argued that individual differences in socially desirable responding is a substantive personality variable; hence, correcting for these differences reduces valid interindividual vari- ability. Another way to evaluate the effects of impression management on personality measurement is to compare the factor structure of a measure completed by a “normal” sample with the factor structure of that measure completed by a sample asked to fake. Ellingson, Joyce Hogan, Paul Barrett, and Robert Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, Oklahoma. We thank Scott Davies, Jeff Facteau, and Lewis Goldberg for their valuable suggestions on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joyce Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems, 2622 East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74114. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 1270 –1285 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270 1270 Sackett, and Hough (1999) showed that when this is done, the factor structure of the personality measure for the faking sample collapses. On the other hand, when samples are compared whose known level of social desirability is different, the factor structure of their scores stays the same (cf. Ellingson et al., 2001; Marshall, DeFruyt, Rolland, & Bagby, 2005; Smith & Ellingson, 2002; Smith, Hanges, & Dickson, 2001). Unlike laboratory studies of faking, ordinary everyday impression management has little influ- ence on the factor structure of measures of normal personality. The fourth point concerns how to reduce faking on personality inventories. Many methods have been proposed, including instruc- tional warnings (Dwight & Donovan, 2003; Smith & Robie, 2004), forced-choice item formats (Christiansen, Edelstein, & Flemming, 1998; Heggestad, Morrison, Reeve, & McCloy, 2006; Jackson, Wrobleski, & Ashton, 2000), subtle versus overt content items (Worthington & Schlottmann, 1986), social desirability correc- tions (Ellingson et al., 1999), and applicant replacement (Schmitt & Oswald, 2006). None of these solutions appears to work very well. Dwight and Donovan (1998) found that warnings against “faking” reduced distortion by about 0.23 standard deviations; they concluded that warnings have small effects and that different warnings are differentially effective. In fact, Arkin (1981) cau- tioned that warning participants may introduce systematic biases rather than reduce response distortion. Snell (2006) suggested that disingenuous warnings are unethical. A. L. Edwards (1957) rec- ommended pairing response alternatives based on similar social desirability weighting. The success of this method is inconclusive, perhaps because of the ipsative scoring of most such measures. Some people still believe that forced-choice formats control im- pression management (Christiansen et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2000; White & Young, 1998); others are more skeptical (Bartram, 1996; Heggestad et al., 2006). We want to add one more generalization to this list. At no point in the history of faking research has a study used a research design that is fully appropriate to the problem. We need data from actual job applicants, in a repeated measures design, where applicants are encouraged to improve their scores on the second occasion. Earlier research consists primarily of (a) laboratory studies, artificial con- ditions, and student research participants—see Smith and Robie (2004) for a critique; (b) between-subjects designs with no retest data to evaluate score change; and (c) studies that mix real-world and artificial instructions to create honest versus faking conditions. These designs compromise the inferences that can be drawn from the results. Abrahams, Neumann, and Githens (1971) concluded that “simulated faking designs do not provide a particularly ap- propriate estimate of what occurs in selection, instead they provide only an indication of how much a test can be faked” (p. 12), and we agree. The Present Study No research has evaluated personality data collected in real employment settings over two occasions, where respondents are naturally motivated to improve their scores on the second occa- sion. Ellingson et al. (1999) recommended this strategy: “Future research should consider collecting data in settings where respon- dents will be naturally motivated to respond in a socially desirable manner” (p. 165). From a measurement perspective, faking can only be understood as a motivated and significant change from a natural baseline condition of responding. The present study used a repeated mea- sures design to evaluate changes in scale scores on a personality inventory on two occasions. Applicants for a customer service job who were rejected because they did not pass the employment tests provided the data. After a minimum of 6 months, they applied for the same job in the same company and completed the same test battery a second time. It seems reasonable to assume that failing the test the first time will create an incentive to change scores during the second testing—regardless of the degree to which applicants faked on the first occasion. Moreover, the goal-setting literature (cf. Austin & Vancouver, 1996) suggests that applicants who fail a selection battery and retake it are motivated to improve their scores the second time. We defined faking in terms of score changes from an initial baseline of responses in the first job application process. We used no experimental instructions or manipulations; we applied no corrections for social desirability, faking, or response distortion; and we made no estimates of “honest scores.” Rather, we used the results from the first employment test administration as a bench- mark against which to compare the results from the second em- ployment test administration. The research presented here consists of three studies using the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). In the first study we compared the personality scale scores of job applicants on two occasions: (a) when applying for a job and (b) when reapplying for the same job after having been denied em- ployment the first time. This study showed no meaningful changes between the first and second occasions, and applicants’ personality scale scores went down as often as they went up on the second occasion. The second study showed that such personality scale score changes as did occur (in the positive and negative directions) were systematic and predictable using measures of social skill, social desirability, and integrity. In the third study we compared the personality scale scores of a sample of job applicants who completed the personality inventory for research purposes with the scores of the job applicants from Study 1 and found no meaningful score differences. Study 1 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The scores for job applicants who fail a per- sonality assessment battery at Time 1 (T1) will not improve on retesting at Time 2 (T2). Previous research with cognitive ability measures supports the hypothesis that applicants will try to change their scores to im- prove their test results. In a meta-analysis of practice effects, J. A. Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert (1984) found that cognitive test scores increased on second administration, using a common form, by 0.42 standard deviations. Hausknecht, Trevor, and Farr (2002) found that law enforcement officers who were retested for promotion three or more times increased their cognitive test scores by 0.69 standard deviations and their oral communication test scores by 0.85 standard deviations. Lievens, Buyse, and Sackett (2005) examined test–retest practice effect sizes for cognitive ability, 1271PERSONALITY AND FAKING knowledge, and situational judgment tests and, after correcting for unreliability, reported effects of .46, .30, and .40, respectively. These results show that, given an opportunity, applicants will try to change their scores in a positive direction. Specifying what appli- cants do to improve their scores is beyond the scope of this article, but it could include remembering item content from T1 (i.e., practice effects), seeking advice (i.e., coaching), and attempting to change self-presentational style. Nonetheless, the degree to which applicants can improve their scores is an empirical question. Rosse et al. (1998) found considerable variation in people’s scores on faking scales—which suggests that the ability to fake is an individual-differences variable. Hypothesis 2: Applicants’ score changes between T1 and T2 will form a normal distribution with a mean of zero and 5\% falling outside of a 95\% confidence interval (CI) around the mean. Every applicant’s score will have an associated error band based on the standard error of measurement of the scale. The standard error of measurement (SEmsmt) is an estimate of the error in an individual’s test score; it is useful for placing an error interval around observed test scores (Thurstone, 1927) and comparing them to a known distribution. The SEmsmt is based on the reliability of a specific measure; the more reliable the test, the smaller the SEmsmt, thereby increasing the ability to detect significant score changes. Tests that meet psychometric (Nunnally, 1978) and pro- fessional (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999) standards for reliability provide a sufficiently small SEmsmt for hypothesis testing. Guion (1998, p. 233) ex- plained that SEmsmt can be used in personnel decisions to deter- mine whether a person’s score differs significantly from a hypo- thetical true score. Cascio, Outtz, Zedeck, and Goldstein (1991) used the SEmsmt with a 95\% CI to establish score bands for selection purposes. Although T2 scores are not expected to be exactly the same as T1 scores, they should be within a 95\% CI of the T1 score approximately 95\% of the time. Hypothesis 3: Between T1 and T2, applicants will lower their scores as often as they increase them. Although applicants should try to increase their scores, their ability to do so will be constrained by their habitual styles of impression management during interviews, by the complexity of the person- ality inventory items, and by their lack of knowledge about the personal requirements of the job. McFarland and Ryan (2000) noted that, although individuals can deliberately increase their test scores, it is not clear that they will try to in an actual employment testing situation. In an experimental manipulation, McFarland and Ryan found considerable variance across individuals in the extent of score change on different types of noncognitive measures. Hypothesis 4: The changes in scores between T1 and T2 will not affect the factor structure of the assessment. We predicted (a) an a priori confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model will fit the T1 scores as well as the T2 scores, (b) such score changes as occur will only introduce error variance into the model, and (c) a structural equation model (SEM) that treats failing the T1 battery as an intervention and includes a latent variable for change will fit the data less well than a model that ignores the intervention. These analyses are similar to those used in prior faking studies (cf. Smith & Ellingson, 2002). Method Sample. The study included 5,266 adults from a population of 266,582 who applied for a customer service job with a nationwide U.S. employer in the transportation industry. The population was 60\% male and 40\% female; race/ethnicity for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians was 42\%, 23\%, 11\%, 6\%, and 1\%, respectively. The sample was 64\% male and 36\% female; race/ethnicity for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians was 35\%, 28\%, 13\%, 8\%, and 1\%, respectively. Race/ethnicity was not reported for 17\% of the population and 15\% of the sample. Applicants completed a selection battery that included a personality inventory, an English comprehension test, and a cognitive ability test. The test battery was computerized and administered in a proctored test center. Applicants had to exceed cutoff scores on the designated scales on all measures. Not ex- ceeding any cutoff score constituted failure on the battery— high scores on one measure could not compensate for low scores on another. The same scoring rules applied to both T1 and T2 admin- istrations. The sample included only applicants who failed the test battery at T1 and reapplied for the same job after a minimum of 6 months. The same test battery was readministered at T2. Measure. The applicants completed the HPI (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). The HPI is a 206-item, true–false inventory of normal personality designed to predict occupational performance. The inventory contains seven primary scales that align with the five-factor model (FFM) of personality (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; J. S. Wiggins, 1996). To link the current study with previous faking research, we used the HPI–Reduced, a shortened five-scale version of the HPI developed by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1996; Smith et al., 2001; Smith & Ellingson, 2002). Using a quasi-confirmatory approach, Smith (1996) examined several ex- isting measures of the FFM and identified consistencies in the measures of each construct. Using 20 HPI subscales (i.e., Homog- enous Item Composites consisting of 4 – 6 items each), Smith and Ellingson chose item content that reflected cross-test FFM consis- tencies. From this analysis, they concluded, “the shortened version is a five-factor version of the HPI that capitalizes on the broad base of theoretical and empirical research supporting a five-factor con- ceptualization of personality” (p. 214). Analyses. We calculated change scores (i.e., algebraic differ- ence scores) for all retest applicants by subtracting their T1 raw scores from their T2 raw scores for each of the five HPI scales. A positive change score indicates a scale increase; a negative change indicates a scale decrease. We then calculated the reliabilities of the change scores based on the reliabilities of the T1 and T2 scores. Change scores are sometimes criticized for unreliability (J. R. Edwards, 1994; J. R. Edwards & Parry, 1993), but they are appropriate and necessary for use in within-subjects research (cf. Rogosa, Brandt, & Zimowski, 1982; Tisak & Smith, 1994). More- over, previous research shows that differences scores on person- ality measures are appropriate data for factor analytic work of the type conducted here (Nesselroade & Cable, 1974). To calculate the reliability of change scores, we used the formula from McFarland 1272 HOGAN, BARRETT, AND HOGAN and Ryan (2000): rdd � (� 2 d � � 2 ed)/ � 2 d, where � 2 ed � � 2 T1 (l – rT1) � � 2 T2 (l – r T2), with T1 representing the first score, T2 the second score, and � 2d the variance of the change score. Then, we calculated the SEmsmt of the change score using the change score reliability and variance for each scale. Analyses focused on the magnitude and the direction of scale score change. The literature contains a number of methods for assessing change in test scores; we used three of the most appro- priate methods. First, we calculated the correlations between the T1 and T2 scores for each scale. If applicants are unable to change their scores, then the T1–T2 correlations will be functionally the same thing as test–retest reliability coefficients, roughly compara- ble to the test–retest correlations presented in the HPI manual. Second, we constructed the distribution of change scores between T1 and T2 for the five personality scales. To identify the scores that changed by more than chance, we followed methods suggested by Cascio et al. (1991) and calculated a 95\% CI for each scale using the SEmsmt and compared change scores in the distribution with this interval. Also, we calculated a distribution for the sum of the change scores across the five scales to evaluate change across the entire profile. Third, we used a latent factor model to assess the extent to which impression management at T2 caused the construct validity of the test to deteriorate. This required three analyses: (a) fitting a confirmatory model to the T1 data; (b) fitting the identical confir- matory model to the T2 data; and (c) fitting a SEM to the com- bined T1, T2, and change score data. Prior to model testing, we conducted a power analysis using methods outlined by MacCal- lum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) for covariance structure mod- eling and verified that our sample sizes were sufficient for the models to be tested. Specifically, following Smith and Ellingson (2002), we used a CFA model. The CFA model specified an oblique five-factor structure using four subscales to define each HPI–R factor; the model fitted appears in Figure 1. We tested the fit of this model with the total sample (n � 5,266) T1 data, and then with the corresponding T2 data, using the structural equation modeling program EQS, Version 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 2006). A further model tested whether T1 scores could be considered entirely causal for T2 scores. The schematic of the model fitted appears in Figure 2. Prior to all SEM analysis, multivariate normality of the T1 and T2 data sets was examined using Mardia’s (1970) normalized multi- variate kurtosis. Results Descriptive statistics. Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, alpha and difference score reliabilities, SEmsmt, and 95\% CIs around the expected score (i.e., mean) for each of the five HPI–R personality scales at T1, T2, and the change scores (i.e., T2 – T1). The effect size (Cohen’s d; Cohen, 1988) for the mean change score is also reported for each scale. Because computing alpha reliabilities required complete item data for each scale, the statistics for each scale are based on complete item– case data for that scale, and that is why the number of cases differs per scale (the “Reliability n” column in Table 1). For all other subsequent analyses, prorated scale scores enabled us to use the total sample: n � 5,266 cases. These analyses are not affected by range restric- tion. The scale variances for the study samples at T1 and T2 are close to the scale variances for the total applicant population (N � 266,582; see Table 1). Dudek (1979) provided the equation for the standard error of measurement used in this article; it is specifically appropriate for computing the standard deviation of expected observed scores from the current observed scores, and an estimate of unreliability: sem3 � sx �(1 � rxx2) where sx � the standard deviation of observed test scores rxx � the reliability of the test. As Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, pp. 259 –260) indicated, this is the appropriate formula to be used when estimating the standard error of measurement with observed scores rather than estimated true scores as the initial score estimates. T1–T2 correlations. Table 2 presents correlations between the scales at T1 and T2; the diagonal contains coefficient alpha reli- abilities for each scale at each point in time. The within-scale correlations for T1 and T2 are an index of the stability of the test scores after failing the T1 test battery. These may be compared with the test–retest reliabilities from current research on the HPI–R (Deslauriers, Grambow, Hilliard, & Veldman, 2006), which are as follows: Emotional Stability, .92; Extraversion, .94; Openness, .92; Agreeableness, .87; and Conscientiousness, .90. That the correlations between T1 and T2 are smaller than the expected test–retest reliabilities suggests that failing the test at T1 might have affected scores at T2. The pattern of scale intercorrelations at T1 is similar to that at T2, suggesting that the personality factor structures at T1 and T2 will be similar and stable. Observed score change distributions. Figure 3 shows the fre- quency distributions of T2 minus T1 score changes by personality scale for the total sample. Positive values indicate that an appli- cant’s T2 score was larger than the T1 score. As shown by the normal curve overlaid on each graph, the five change score dis- tributions are near normal and possess negligible skew and kurto- sis except for the Agreeableness scale, which had a normalized kurtosis value of 7.46. Table 1 presents the mean for each distri- bution; the median and mode for each of the five distributions is 0. These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2. Average scores on two of the five scales, Emotional Stability and Extraversion, changed in a positive direction between T1 and T2 (the Extraversion T2 – T1 mean to 4 decimal places is .0038); average scores on the other three scales were lower at T2 than at T1. Mean score change on the Emotional Stability scale (20 items) was .23 raw score points higher at T2 than T1, with a standard deviation of 2.99 and a range of –13 to �15. Although statistically significant ( p � .001), this change (i.e., d � 0.077) is not meaningful by convention (Cohen, 1988). Raw score change on the Extraversion scale (19 items) ranged from –17 to �15, with a mean of 0.00 points (SD � 3.45), which was neither a significant nor a meaningful change between T1 and T2 scores (i.e., d � 0.001). The raw score change ranged from –13 to �13 on the Openness scale (15 items), with a mean change of – 0.18 points (SD � 2.62), which was statistically significant but not meaningful (i.e., d � – 0.070). Mean raw score change on the Agreeableness scale (19 items) was – 0.17 points (SD � 1.77), which was a statistically significant but small effect 1273PERSONALITY AND FAKING (i.e., d � – 0.098) and ranged from –14 to �10 points. And the raw score change ranged from –11 to �12 on the Conscientiousness scale (17 items), with a mean change of – 0.04 points (SD � 2.37), which was neither significant nor meaningful (i.e., d � – 0.017). These results support Hypothesis 3. The 95\% CIs around individuals’ scores for each scale at T1, T2, and the T2 – T1 change score were calculated around the scale means using the respective SEmsmt. The SEmsmt estimates were calculated using the coefficient alpha reliability and standard de- viation for each scale at each point in time and for the change score. The upper and lower bounds of the 95\% CI at T1 and T2 for each of the five scales round to the same raw score points (with the exception of Agreeableness T1, with a lower bound CI of 15.03 vs. 14.66 for T2), indicating that for all practical purposes, any indi- vidual’s T1 score was within a 95\% CI at T2. The 95\% CI for each of the five T2 – T1 change scores centered on a rounded raw score of zero. The upper and lower bounds of each of the five T2 – T1 95\% CIs were used as comparisons to the frequency distributions of individuals’ change scores on each of the five scales (see the Appendix for a full illustration of change score data). Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness Extraversion No Guilt Good Attachment Self-Confidence Accomplishment Likes Parties Likes Crowds Reading Good Memory Education Culture Entertaining Experience Seeking Likes People Caring Sensitive Easy to Live With Virtuous Mastery Morality No Hostility Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis model specified to Hogan Personality Inventory—Revised scales and fit to each of the Time 1 and Time 2 data sets. 1274 HOGAN, BARRETT, AND HOGAN Regarding the Emotional Stability scale, 3.1\% of applicants changed their scores between T1 and T2 in a negative direction beyond the lower bound of the 95\% CI; 4.3\% changed their scores in a positive direction beyond the upper bound of the 95\% CI for the same scale. For the Extraversion scale, 5.4\% of applicants changed their scores beyond the lower bound of the 95\% CI; 5.2\% changed their scores beyond the upper bound of the 95\% CI for the same scale. For the Openness scale, 3\% of applicants changed their scores beyond the lower bound of the 95\% CI; 3.6\% changed their scores beyond the upper bound of the 95\% CI for the same scale. For the Agreeableness scale, 3.3\% of applicants changed their scores beyond the lower bound of the 95\% CI; 1.7\% changed their scores beyond the upper bound of the 95\% CI for the same scale. And for the … Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE ... Morgeson, Frederick P;Campion, Michael A;Dipboye, Robert L;Hollenbeck, John R;Murphy, Kevin;Schmi... Personnel Psychology; Winter 2007; 60, 4; ProQuest Central pg. 1029 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ® SAMPLE REPORT Case Description: Mr. E – Police Candidate Interpretive Report Mr. E is a 27-year-old, single male candidate for an entry-level police officer position in a large urban agency. His background revealed a stable work history as a lead package sorter with no reprimands or legal conflicts. Although several coworkers described him as “entitled,” “self-promoting,” and “bossy,” his supervisor (and best friend since high school) attributed those sentiments to coworker resentment over his comparatively high productivity and associated bonuses. During the interview, Mr. E frequently interrupted and spoke over the psychologist. He denied having any conflicts with coworkers and insisted that he was highly regarded and respected by the other workers on his crew. Mr. E did acknowledge that he frequently needed to reprimand his coworkers, but he viewed this as a reflection of his strong leadership skills. The psychologist’s observations noted substantial limitations in Mr. E’s capacity for insight and empathy, and in his ability to read his social environment. Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-3 reports, but are provided here as background information. The following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. E’s responses to the MMPI-3. Additional MMPI-3 sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at PearsonAssessments.com/MMPI-3. © 2020 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Pearson, Q-global, and Q Local are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, of Pearson plc. MMPI is a registered trademark of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. CLINA24805-E EL 6/20 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Personality-\%26-Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-3/p/P100000004.html MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report David M. Corey, PhD, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD ID Number: Mr. E Age: 27 Gender: Male Marital Status: Not reported Years of Education: Not reported Date Assessed: 10/14/2019 Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-3 test booklet. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Technical Manual. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and MMPI are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson is a trademark in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s). This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets. Qualified licensees may excerpt portions of this output report, limited to the minimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of the examinee, in accordance with their professions citation standards, if any. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made of this report without prior written permission from the University of Minnesota Press. [ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ] SA MP LE MMPI-3 Validity Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 KLFBSFsFpFTRINVRIN Raw Score: Response \%: CRIN VRIN TRIN Combined Response Inconsistency Variable Response Inconsistency True Response Inconsistency 1 39 F Fp Fs FBS RBS Infrequent Responses Infrequent Psychopathology Responses Infrequent Somatic Responses Symptom Validity Scale Response Bias Scale 2 53 0 41 3 50 13 50 5 40 5 56 2 35 120 110 Cannot Say (Raw): 0 T Score: 444342 F 39 52 45 5745 5 4425 6 126 F Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ 71 998499.561 5810Percent scoring at or below test taker: L K Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity RBS 11 65 65 7 4723 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. CRIN 1 36 39 5 54 100100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 2 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: EID THD BXD Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction 0 32 100 RCd RC1 RC2 RC4 Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Antisocial Behavior RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Activation 1 42 100 0 36 100 5 46 100 6 60 100 0 36 100 2 44 100 3 57 100 4 55 100 3 44 100 7 51 100 120 110 Higher-Order Restructured Clinical 37 40394142 42 43 43 4239 42 5 5466 6 6 5 65 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 21 80658599.5 39 71 98 9887 94 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 3 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 NFC ARXCMPSTR BRFANPWRYNUC EAT HLPCOG SFD Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: MLS NUC EAT COG Malaise Neurological Complaints Eating Concerns Cognitive Complaints 0 33 100 WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF Worry Compulsivity Anxiety-Related Experiences Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears SUI HLP SFD NFC STR Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress 0 44 100 0 38 100 0 44 100 2 52 100 1 51 100 1 44 100 0 40 100 0 37 100 5 56 100 0 37 100 0 37 100 0 43 100 0 37 100 Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing 120 110 36 45404443 42 4141 42 4740 40 4440 4 2436 4 53 5 85 4 44 Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MLS SUI 66 98799696 99.3 8689 52 9373 70 9073 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 4 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 SFI SHYSAVACTIMPSUBJCP AGG DSFCYN DOM Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: ACT AGG CYN Activation Aggression Cynicism 1 43 FML JCP SUB IMP Family Problems Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Impulsivity SFI DOM DSF SAV SHY Self-Importance Dominance Disaffiliativeness Social Avoidance Shyness 4 53 3 52 0 39 1 48 1 49 8 54 9 55 9 69 3 50 0 40 InterpersonalExternalizing 120 110 41 45414244 43 5141 49 4543 6 8557 5 88 8 76 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 78 90986881 94 8196 100 8170 Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. FML 0 38 42 6 59 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 5 SA MP LE MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 INTRNEGEDISCPSYCAGGR Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: AGGR PSYC DISC NEGE INTR Aggressiveness Psychoticism Disconstraint Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality 11 63 100 3 47 100 2 45 100 3 45 100 4 59 100 120 110 47 45404242 6 7566 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 99.3 67887699.3 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 6 SA MP LE MMPI-3 T SCORES (BY DOMAIN) PROTOCOL VALIDITY SUBSTANTIVE SCALES Scale scores shown in bold font are interpreted in the report. Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-3 interpretation in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1. Content Non-Responsiveness 0 36 39 50 CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN Over-Reporting 50 41 53 40 35 F Fp Fs FBS RBS Under-Reporting 56 65 L K Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 33 52 44 38 RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG Emotional Dysfunction 32 36 44 51 40 44 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC 36 47 RC2 INTR 44 37 37 56 37 37 43 45 RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE Thought Dysfunction 60 57 THD RC6 55 RC8 59 PSYC Behavioral Dysfunction 46 44 43 48 39 BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB 51 52 53 49 55 RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN 45 DISC Interpersonal Functioning 54 69 63 40 50 38 SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 7 SA MP LE SYNOPSIS This is a valid MMPI-3 protocol. Scores on the Substantive Scales indicate clinically significant interpersonal dysfunction. Interpersonal difficulties relate to overly domineering behavior. Comparison group findings point to additional possible concerns about persecutory beliefs, odd perceptions and thoughts, and over-assertiveness. Possible job-relevant problems are identified in the following domains: Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance, Routine Task Performance, Decision-Making and Judgment, Feedback Acceptance, Social Competence and Teamwork, Integrity, and Conscientiousness and Dependability. PROTOCOL VALIDITY This is a valid MMPI-3 protocol. There are no problems with unscorable items. The test taker responded to the items relevantly on the basis of their content, and there are no indications of over- or under-reporting. This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional qualified to interpret the MMPI-3 in the context of preemployment psychological evaluations of police and other law enforcement candidates. It focuses on identifying problems; it does not convey potential strengths. The information it contains should be considered in the context of the test takers background, the demands of the position under consideration, the clinical interview, findings from supplemental tests, and other relevant information. The interpretive statements in the Protocol Validity section of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample, as well as scores obtained by the multisite sample of 1,924 individuals that make up the Police Candidate Comparison Group. The interpretive statements in the Clinical Findings and Diagnostic Considerations sections of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample. Following recommended practice, only T scores of 65 and higher (with a few exceptions) are considered clinically significant. Scores at this clinical level are generally rare among police candidates. Statements in the Comparison Group Findings and Job-Relevant Correlates sections are based on comparisons with scores obtained by the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Statements in these sections may be based on T scores that, although less than 65, are nevertheless uncommon in reference to the comparison group. The report includes extensive annotation, which appears as superscripts following each statement in the narrative, keyed to Endnotes with accompanying Research References, which appear in the final two sections of the report. Additional information about the annotation features is provided in the headnotes to these sections and in the MMPI-3 Users Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 8 SA MP LE CLINICAL FINDINGS Clinical-level symptoms, personality characteristics, and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to an empirically guided framework. (Please see Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for details.) Statements containing the word reports are based on the item content of MMPI-3 scales, whereas statements that include the word likely are based on empirical correlates of scale scores. Specific sources for each statement can be viewed with the annotation features of this report. The test taker describes himself as having strong opinions, as standing up for himself, as assertive and direct, and as able to lead others1. He likely believes he has leadership capabilities, but is viewed by others as overly domineering2. There are no indications of clinically significant somatic, cognitive, emotional, thought, or behavioral dysfunction in this protocol. DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic assessment based on the test takers MMPI-3 results. It is recommended that he be evaluated for the following: Interpersonal Disorders - Disorders characterized by excessively domineering behavior3 COMPARISON GROUP FINDINGS This section describes the MMPI-3 Substantive Scale findings in the context of the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report. Job-related correlates of these results, if any, are provided in the subsequent Job-Relevant Correlates section. Unusual Thoughts, Perceptions, and Beliefs The test taker reports a comparatively high level of unusual thinking for a police candidate4. Only 1.0\% of comparison group members convey such thoughts at this or a higher level. More specifically, he reports a relatively high level of persecutory beliefs for a police candidate5. Only 3.9\% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of persecutory thinking. He reports a comparatively high level of odd perceptions and thoughts for a police candidate6. Only 3.6\% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of unusual experiences. Interpersonal Problems The test takers responses indicate a level of domineering behavior that may be incompatible with public safety requirements for good interpersonal functioning3. This level of dominance is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 5.9\% of comparison group members give evidence of this level of domineering behavior. He reports a comparatively high level of over-assertiveness for a police candidate7. Only 2.7\% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of interpersonally aggressive behavior. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 9 SA MP LE JOB-RELEVANT CORRELATES Job-relevant personality characteristics and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to ten problem domains commonly identified in the professional literature as relevant to police candidate suitability. (Please see MMPI-3 Users Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report for details.) Statements that begin with Compared with other police candidates are based on correlations with other self-report measures obtained in police candidate samples that included individuals who were subsequently hired as well as those who were not. Statements that begin with He is more likely than most police officers or trainees are based on correlations with outcome data obtained in samples of hired candidates during academy or field training, probation, and/or the post-probation period. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report. Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to become impatient with others over minor infractions8. He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties performing under stressful conditions9. Routine Task Performance Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties carrying out tasks under non-stressful conditions10; cognitive adaptation problems11; and report writing problems11. Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to have thoughts, perceptions, and/or experiences that are rarely reported12. He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties prioritizing multiple and essential functions of the job and performing them in quick succession while maintaining good environmental awareness of vital information (in other words, multi-tasking)11. He is also more likely to exhibit difficulties with effective decision making9. Feedback Acceptance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is less likely to reflect on his behavior13 and more likely to brush off criticism and other negative feedback13. Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to be opinionated and outspoken13; to fail to consider others needs and feelings13; and to be demanding14. He is also more likely to hold overly suspicious views about the motives and actions of others15 and to have difficulty trusting others16. He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties cooperating with peers and/or supervisors17. Integrity Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties leading to sustained internal affairs investigations18; complaints from the public19; and investigations about conduct unbecoming a police officer19. Conscientiousness and Dependability Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties with initiative and drive, such as obtaining information and evidence needed to solve crimes and explain incidents20. He is also more likely to exhibit difficulties reliably attending court21; with punctuality and attendance22; and with conscientiousness23. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 10 SA MP LE The candidates test scores are not associated with problems in the following domains: - Assertiveness - Substance Use - Impulse Control ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION Unscorable Responses The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-3 items. Critical Responses Seven MMPI-3 scales—Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety-Related Experiences (ARX), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and Aggression (AGG)—have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. However, any item answered in the keyed direction on SUI is listed. The test taker has not produced an elevated T score (> 65) on any of these scales or answered any SUI items in the keyed direction. User-Designated Item-Level Information The following item-level information is based on the report users selection of additional scales, and/or of lower cutoffs for the critical scales from the previous section. Items answered by the test taker in the keyed direction (True or False) on a selected scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is at the user-designated cutoff score or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative sample (NS) and of the Police Candidate (Men and Women) Comparison Group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses following the item content. Thought Dysfunction (THD, T Score = 60) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7\%, CG 14.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5\%, CG 16.1\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.3\%, CG 1.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2\%, CG 5.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 16.4\%, CG 6.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.9\%, CG 0.8\%) Ideas of Persecution (RC6, T Score = 57) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.3\%, CG 1.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 30.9\%, CG 8.8\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 16.4\%, CG 6.2\%) Aberrant Experiences (RC8, T Score = 55) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7\%, CG 14.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 38.0\%, CG 15.8\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5\%, CG 16.1\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2\%, CG 5.2\%) MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 11 SA MP LE Dominance (DOM, T Score = 69) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 85.2\%, CG 96.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 78.7\%, CG 78.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 68.8\%, CG 41.6\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.7\%, CG 73.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.3\%, CG 90.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 60.7\%, CG 73.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 80.6\%, CG 97.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 66.5\%, CG 86.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 39.8\%, CG 12.2\%) Aggressiveness (AGGR, T Score = 63) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 85.2\%, CG 96.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 78.7\%, CG 78.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 68.8\%, CG 41.6\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.7\%, CG 73.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.3\%, CG 90.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 74.7\%, CG 98.7\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 60.7\%, CG 73.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 66.5\%, CG 86.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 44.6\%, CG 22.7\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 42.2\%, CG 30.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 39.8\%, CG 12.2\%) Psychoticism (PSYC, T Score = 59) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7\%, CG 14.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5\%, CG 16.1\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2\%, CG 5.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.9\%, CG 0.8\%) Critical Follow-up Items This section contains a list of items to which the test taker responded in a manner warranting follow-up. The items were identified by police officer screening experts as having critical content. Clinicians are encouraged to follow up on these statements with the candidate by making related inquiries, rather than reciting the item(s) verbatim. Each item is followed by the candidates response, the percentage of Police Candidate Comparison Group members who gave this response, and the scale(s) on which the item appears. Item number and content omitted. (True; 5.1\%; BXD, RC9, IMP, DISC) Item number and content omitted. (True; 1.0\%; F) Item number and content omitted. (True; 5.0\%; VRIN, BXD, RC9, IMP, DISC) MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 12 SA MP LE ENDNOTES This section lists for each statement in the report the MMPI-3 score(s) that triggered it. In addition, each statement is identified as a Test Response, if based on item content, a Correlate, if based on empirical correlates, or an Inference, if based on the report authors judgment. (This information can also be accessed on-screen by placing the cursor on a given statement.) For correlate-based statements, research references (Ref. No.) are provided, keyed to the consecutively numbered reference list following the endnotes. 1 Test Response: DOM=69 2 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 3 Inference: DOM=69 4 Test Response: THD=60; PSYC=59 5 Test Response: RC6=57 6 Test Response: RC8=55 7 Test Response: AGGR=63 8 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; AGGR=63, Ref. 2, 4, 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 2, 4, 12 9 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2 10 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 8, 10 11 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2 12 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 12; RC8=55, Ref. 4, 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 4, 12 13 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 2 14 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 4 15 Correlate: PSYC=59, Ref. 4 16 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 4, 12 17 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 7; AGGR=63, Ref. 2, 10 18 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 12 19 Correlate: RC6=57, Ref. 10, 12 20 Correlate: PSYC=59, Ref. 9, 11 21 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 10, 12; RC8=55, Ref. 10; PSYC=59, Ref. 10, 12 22 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 2; RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2 23 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 2; RC8=55, Ref. 2; AGGR=63, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2 MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 13 SA MP LE RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST The following studies are sources for empirical correlates identified in the Endnotes section of this report. 1. Ayearst, L. E., Sellbom, M., Trobst, K. K., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Evaluating the interpersonal content of the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.730085 2. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press. 3. Cox, A., Courrégé, S. C., Feder, A. H., & Weed, N. C. (2017). Effects of augmenting response options of the MMPI-2-RF: An extension of previous findings. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1323988. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1323988 4. Detrick, P., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Sellbom, M. (2016). Associations between MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) and Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) scale scores in a law enforcement preemployment screening sample. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9172-7 5. Kastner, R. M., Sellbom, M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). A comparison of the psychometric properties of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory full-length and short-form versions. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025832 6. Menton, W. H., Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Marek, R. J., Hicks, A. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2019). Equivalence of laptop and tablet administrations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. Assessment, 26(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117714558 7. Roberts, R. M., Tarescavage, A. M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Roberts, M. D. (2018). predicting post-probationary job performance of police officers using CPI and MMPI-2-RF test data obtained during preemployment psychological screening. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1423990 8. Tarescavage, A. M., Brewster, J., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Use of pre-hire … ® SAMPLE REPORT Case Description: Ms. F – Police Candidate Interpretive Report Ms. F is a 25-year-old, single female who applied to a small, rural police department for an entry-level police officer position. Her background showed her to be rule-compliant, an excellent student, and well-regarded by employers and former teachers. While attending community college to earn her associate’s degree in criminal justice, she lived at home with her parents and worked as a barista. Personal references and other collateral sources described Ms. F as reliable, conscientious, and pleasant but not outgoing. Work references reported that she has never been late for work and has no history of reprimands or other disciplinary actions. No discrepancies were noted between her self-reported history and collateral information. During the interview, Ms. F presented as inhibited, rigid, and constrained, particularly when responding to hypothetical situations outside her range of experience. Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-3 reports, but are provided here as background information. The following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Ms. F’s responses to the MMPI-3. Additional MMPI-3 sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at PearsonAssessments.com/MMPI-3. © 2020 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Pearson, Q-global, and Q Local are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, of Pearson plc. MMPI is a registered trademark of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. CLINA24805-F EL 6/20 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Personality-\%26-Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-3/p/P100000004.html MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report David M. Corey, PhD, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD ID Number: Ms. F Age: 24 Gender: Female Marital Status: Not reported Years of Education: Not reported Date Assessed: 10/14/2019 Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-3 test booklet. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Technical Manual. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and MMPI are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson is a trademark in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s). This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets. Qualified licensees may excerpt portions of this output report, limited to the minimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of the examinee, in accordance with their professions citation standards, if any. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made of this report without prior written permission from the University of Minnesota Press. [ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ] SA MP LE MMPI-3 Validity Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 KLFBSFsFpFTRINVRIN Raw Score: Response \%: CRIN VRIN TRIN Combined Response Inconsistency Variable Response Inconsistency True Response Inconsistency 1 39 F Fp Fs FBS RBS Infrequent Responses Infrequent Psychopathology Responses Infrequent Somatic Responses Symptom Validity Scale Response Bias Scale 0 42 2 58 2 47 12 54 9 51 12 85 8 58 120 110 Cannot Say (Raw): 0 T Score: F 444342 F F 39 52 45 5745 5 4425 6 126 F Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ 71 7199.89893 99.899.4Percent scoring at or below test taker: L K Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity RBS 13 71 65 7 8293 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. CRIN 4 45 39 5 92 100100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 2 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: EID THD BXD Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction 5 44 100 RCd RC1 RC2 RC4 Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Antisocial Behavior RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Activation 1 42 100 1 41 100 0 33 100 3 53 100 5 57 100 0 35 100 1 50 100 2 49 100 0 34 100 0 32 100 120 110 Higher-Order Restructured Clinical 37 40394142 42 43 43 4239 42 5 5466 6 6 5 65 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 91 80891296 99.1 24 92 9241 10 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 3 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 NFC ARXCMPSTR BRFANPWRYNUC EAT HLPCOG SFD Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: MLS NUC EAT COG Malaise Neurological Complaints Eating Concerns Cognitive Complaints 1 40 100 WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF Worry Compulsivity Anxiety-Related Experiences Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears SUI HLP SFD NFC STR Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress 0 44 100 0 38 100 0 44 100 0 38 100 0 40 100 1 44 100 0 40 100 2 49 100 0 36 100 0 37 100 0 37 100 1 56 100 1 44 100 Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing 120 110 36 45404443 42 4141 42 4740 40 4440 4 2436 4 53 5 85 4 44 Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MLS SUI 91 98799657 88 8689 98 1773 70 9991 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 4 SA MP LE MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 SFI SHYSAVACTIMPSUBJCP AGG DSFCYN DOM Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: ACT AGG CYN Activation Aggression Cynicism 1 43 FML JCP SUB IMP Family Problems Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Impulsivity SFI DOM DSF SAV SHY Self-Importance Dominance Disaffiliativeness Social Avoidance Shyness 0 35 0 37 0 39 0 39 0 39 6 46 0 32 4 41 7 66 0 40 InterpersonalExternalizing 120 110 41 45414244 43 5141 49 4543 6 8557 5 88 8 76 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 78 23576854 71 3923 10 99.670 Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. FML 0 38 42 6 59 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 5 SA MP LE MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 INTRNEGEDISCPSYCAGGR Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: AGGR PSYC DISC NEGE INTR Aggressiveness Psychoticism Disconstraint Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality 5 41 100 8 60 100 1 41 100 0 34 100 3 56 100 120 110 47 45404242 6 7566 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 19 99771998 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 6 SA MP LE MMPI-3 T SCORES (BY DOMAIN) PROTOCOL VALIDITY SUBSTANTIVE SCALES Scale scores shown in bold font are interpreted in the report. Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-3 interpretation in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1. Content Non-Responsiveness 0 45 39 54 F CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN Over-Reporting 47 58 42 51 58 F Fp Fs FBS RBS Under-Reporting 85 71 L K Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 40 38 44 38 RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG Emotional Dysfunction 44 41 44 40 40 44 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC 57 60 RC2 INTR 34 49 37 36 37 44 56 41 RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE Thought Dysfunction 53 50 THD RC6 49 RC8 56 PSYC Behavioral Dysfunction 33 35 43 39 39 BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB 32 37 35 39 32 RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN 34 DISC Interpersonal Functioning 46 41 41 40 66 38 SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 7 SA MP LE SYNOPSIS Scores on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales raise substantial concerns about the possible impact of under-reporting on the validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, scores on the Substantive Scales indicate clinically significant interpersonal dysfunction. Interpersonal difficulties relate to social avoidance. Comparison group findings point to additional possible concerns about a low level of positive emotions and overcontrolled behavior. Possible job-relevant problems are identified in the following domains: Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance, Routine Task Performance, Decision-Making and Judgment, Feedback Acceptance, Assertiveness, Social Competence and Teamwork, and Conscientiousness and Dependability. PROTOCOL VALIDITY Content Non-Responsiveness The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-3 items. She also responded relevantly to the items on the basis of their content. Over-Reporting There are no indications of over-reporting in this protocol. This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional qualified to interpret the MMPI-3 in the context of preemployment psychological evaluations of police and other law enforcement candidates. It focuses on identifying problems; it does not convey potential strengths. The information it contains should be considered in the context of the test takers background, the demands of the position under consideration, the clinical interview, findings from supplemental tests, and other relevant information. The interpretive statements in the Protocol Validity section of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample, as well as scores obtained by the multisite sample of 1,924 individuals that make up the Police Candidate Comparison Group. The interpretive statements in the Clinical Findings and Diagnostic Considerations sections of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample. Following recommended practice, only T scores of 65 and higher (with a few exceptions) are considered clinically significant. Scores at this clinical level are generally rare among police candidates. Statements in the Comparison Group Findings and Job-Relevant Correlates sections are based on comparisons with scores obtained by the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Statements in these sections may be based on T scores that, although less than 65, are nevertheless uncommon in reference to the comparison group. The report includes extensive annotation, which appears as superscripts following each statement in the narrative, keyed to Endnotes with accompanying Research References, which appear in the final two sections of the report. Additional information about the annotation features is provided in the headnotes to these sections and in the MMPI-3 Users Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 8 SA MP LE Under-Reporting The test taker presented herself in an extremely positive light by denying a very large number of minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge1. This level of virtuous self-presentation is very uncommon even among individuals with a background stressing traditional values2. It is also quite uncommon among police candidates. Only 1.9\% of the comparison group members claimed this many or more uncommon virtues. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales is uninterpretable3. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales4. The candidates responses may be a result of unintentional (e.g., naïve) or intentional under-reporting. One way to distinguish between the two is to compare her responses to items with historical content against available collateral information (e.g., background information, interview data). Following are the test takers responses to items with potentially verifiable historical content: Item number and content omitted. (True) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number andcontent omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (True) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Corroborated evidence of intentional under-reporting may be incompatible with the integrity requirements of the position. In addition, this level of virtuous self-presentation may reflect uncooperativeness that precludes a reliable determination of the candidates suitability. Corroborating evidence in support of this possibility may be found in other test data, the clinical interview, or background information. The candidates virtuous self-presentation may reflect an overly rigid orientation to matters of morality and/or an inability to self-examine that may impair her effectiveness as a law enforcement officer. This can be explored through interview and collateral sources. In addition, she presented herself as very well-adjusted5. This reported level of psychological adjustment is relatively rare in the general population but rather common among police candidates. CLINICAL FINDINGS Clinical-level symptoms, personality characteristics, and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to an empirically guided framework. (Please see Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for details.) Statements containing the word reports are based on the item content of MMPI-3 scales, whereas statements that include the word likely are based on empirical correlates of scale scores. Specific sources for each statement can be viewed with the annotation features of this report. In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting (claiming a large number of uncommon virtues), the following statements may not identify, or may underestimate, psychological problems that could impede the candidates ability to perform the duties of a police officer. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 9 SA MP LE The test taker reports not enjoying social events and avoiding social situations6. She likely is socially introverted7, has difficulty forming close relationships8, and is emotionally restricted9. There are no indications of clinically significant somatic, cognitive, emotional, thought, or behavioral dysfunction in this protocol. However, because of indications of under-reporting described earlier, such problems cannot be ruled out. DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic assessment based on the test takers MMPI-3 results. It is recommended that she be evaluated for the following, bearing in mind possible threats to protocol validity noted earlier in this report: Interpersonal Disorders - Disorders associated with social avoidance such as avoidant personality disorder10 COMPARISON GROUP FINDINGS This section describes the MMPI-3 Substantive Scale findings in the context of the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report. Job-related correlates of these results, if any, are provided in the subsequent Job-Relevant Correlates section. In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting, the comparison group findings discussed below may not identify, or may underestimate, psychological problems that could impede the candidates ability to perform the duties of a police officer. Emotional/Internalizing Problems The test taker reports a comparatively high level of introversion and low positive emotions for a police candidate11. Only 3.4\% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of social withdrawal and low positive emotional experience. Behavioral/Externalizing Problems The test takers responses indicate a very low level of energy together with inhibited, overcontrolled behavior, which may be incompatible with public safety requirements for behavioral adaptability12. This level of inhibited behavior is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 5.4\% of comparison group members give evidence of this level of overly constrained behavior and low activation. Interpersonal Problems The test takers responses indicate a level of social avoidance that may be incompatible with public safety requirements for good interpersonal functioning13. This level of socially avoidant behavior is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 1.7\% of comparison group members give evidence of this or a greater level of social avoidance. JOB-RELEVANT CORRELATES Job-relevant personality characteristics and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to ten problem domains commonly identified in the professional literature as relevant to police candidate suitability. (Please see MMPI-3 Users Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report for MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 10 SA MP LE details.) Statements that begin with Compared with other police candidates are based on correlations with other self-report measures obtained in police candidate samples that included individuals who were subsequently hired as well as those who were not. Statements that begin with She is more likely than most police officers or trainees are based on correlations with outcome data obtained in samples of hired candidates during academy or field training, probation, and/or the post-probation period. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report. In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting, the job-relevant correlates described in this section may not identify, or may underestimate, problematic tendencies that could impede the candidates ability to perform the duties of a police officer. Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to become easily discouraged14; to have difficulty coping with stress14; and to worry about problems and be uncertain about how to deal with them15. She is also more likely to be unprepared to take decisive action in times of stress or emergency16. She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties applying instructions appropriately under stressful conditions17 and performing under stressful conditions18. Routine Task Performance Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties carrying out tasks under non-stressful conditions19. Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to be made anxious by change and uncertainty20. Feedback Acceptance Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties accepting and responding to constructive performance feedback21. Assertiveness Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to avoid situations that others generally view as benign and non-intimidating22; to be ill at ease in dealing with others23; and to be unsure and act hesitantly24. She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties engaging or confronting subjects in circumstances in which an officer would normally approach or intervene25. She is also more likely to exhibit difficulties in demonstrating a command presence and controlling situations requiring order or resolution26. Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to have difficulty creating and sustaining mutually satisfying relationships27 and to have a limited social support network28. She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties reading people, listening to others, and adapting her language and approach to the requirements of the situation29. Conscientiousness and Dependability Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties reliably attending court30; in her dedication to improvement of knowledge and skills31; and with punctuality and attendance32. She is also more likely to exhibit difficulties with reliable work behavior and dependable follow-through33. MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 11 SA MP LE The candidates test scores are not associated with problems in the following domains: - Integrity - Substance Use - Impulse Control ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION Unscorable Responses The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-3 items. Critical Responses Seven MMPI-3 scales—Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety-Related Experiences (ARX), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and Aggression (AGG)—have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if her T score on that scale is 65 or higher. However, any item answered in the keyed direction on SUI is listed. The test taker has not produced an elevated T score (> 65) on any of these scales or answered any SUI items in the keyed direction. User-Designated Item-Level Information The following item-level information is based on the report users selection of additional scales, and/or of lower cutoffs for the critical scales from the previous section. Items answered by the test taker in the keyed direction (True or False) on a selected scale are listed below if her T score on that scale is at the user-designated cutoff score or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative sample (NS) and of the Police Candidate (Men and Women) Comparison Group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses following the item content. Uncommon Virtues (L, T Score = 85) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 24.0\%, CG 41.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.1\%, CG 65.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.9\%, CG 56.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.5\%, CG 29.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.1\%, CG 22.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 50.2\%, CG 59.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 31.1\%, CG 61.7\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 19.7\%, CG 29.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 23.6\%, CG 37.6\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 22.6\%, CG 19.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 48.7\%, CG 71.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.9\%, CG 13.4\%) Low Positive Emotions (RC2, T Score = 57) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 41.2\%, CG 31.5\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 7.3\%, CG 3.4\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 29.9\%, CG 16.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2\%, CG 5.0\%) MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 12 SA MP LE Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 33.5\%, CG 13.1\%) Social Avoidance (SAV, T Score = 66) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 53.1\%, CG 44.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 14.8\%, CG 1.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.7\%, CG 41.7\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 37.4\%, CG 25.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 26.7\%, CG 24.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2\%, CG 5.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 41.5\%, CG 23.9\%) Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR, T Score = 60) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 53.1\%, CG 44.2\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 13.1\%, CG 3.8\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.7\%, CG 41.7\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 37.4\%, CG 25.9\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 29.9\%, CG 16.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 26.7\%, CG 24.3\%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2\%, CG 5.0\%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 41.5\%, CG 23.9\%) Critical Follow-up Items This section contains a list of items to which the test taker responded in a manner warranting follow-up. The items were identified by police officer screening experts as having critical content. Clinicians are encouraged to follow up on these statements with the candidate by making related inquiries, rather than reciting the item(s) verbatim. Each item is followed by the candidates response, the percentage of Police Candidate Comparison Group members who gave this response, and the scale(s) on which the item appears. Item number and content omitted. (False; 2.1\%; TRIN, STR) Item number and content omitted. (True; 1.5\%; VRIN, F, THD, RC6, PSYC) MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 13 SA MP LE ENDNOTES This section lists for each statement in the report the MMPI-3 score(s) that triggered it. In addition, each statement is identified as a Test Response, if based on item content, a Correlate, if based on empirical correlates, or an Inference, if based on the report authors judgment. (This information can also be accessed on-screen by placing the cursor on a given statement.) For correlate-based statements, research references (Ref. No.) are provided, keyed to the consecutively numbered reference list following the endnotes. 1 Test Response: L=85 2 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 6 3 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 7, 9, 15, 16 4 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 4, 12, 16, 23 5 Test Response: K=71 6 Test Response: SAV=66 7 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 14 8 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 1, 4, 5, 8, 13 9 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 4, 23 10 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 4, 17, 24 11 Test Response: RC2=57; INTR=60 12 Inference: RC9=32; BXD=33; DISC=34 13 Inference: SAV=66 14 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 22 15 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 4, 22; INTR=60, Ref. 4 16 Correlate: BXD=33, Ref. 4, 22; RC9=32, Ref. 4, 22; SAV=66, Ref. 4; DISC=34, …