case demonstrations using the · case demonstrations using the ----- ----- police ... high demand...

Case Demonstrations

Using the ------- ------

Police Candidate Interpretive

Report (PCIR)

David M. Corey, Ph.D., ABPP

Disclosure of Financial Interest

David Corey has received research funds from the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota Press.

As co-author of the Police Candidate Interpretive Report (PCIR) with Yossef S. Ben-Porath, he receives royalties on its sales.

1

Agenda

v Best Practices v Integrative Model v Case Demonstrations v Q&A

Sources for Best Practices Ø  Statutory, Regulatory & Case Law

Ø  EEOC Enforcement Guidance (ADA, ADAAA, and GINA)

Ø  APA Professional Practice Guidelines

Ø  Professional Practice Guidelines for Occupationally Mandated Psychological Evaluations (2017)

Ø  http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/occupationally-mandated-psychological-evaluations.pdf

Ø  IACP Police Psychological Services Section

Ø  Preemployment Psychological Evaluation Guidelines (2014)

Ø  http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/documents/pdfs/Psych-PreemploymentPsychEval.pdf

2

Sources for Best Practices Ø  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA/

APA/NCME, 2014)

Ø  Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessments (Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, 2009)

Ø  California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST)

Ø  Peace Officer Psychological Screening Manual (Spilberg & Corey, 2017) http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/Peace_Officer_Psychological_Screening_Manual.pdf

Available MMPI-2-RF Resources

3

Available MMPI-2-RF Resources

Coming in Spring 2018: University of Minnesota Press

Assessing Police and Other Public Safety Personnel Using the MMPI-2-RF:

A Practical Guide David M. Corey & Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Ø  Concise primer on the MMPI-2-RF Ø  Covers preemployment and fitness-for-duty evaluations Ø  Focused on all four public safety positions: police officer,

corrections officer, firefighter, and dispatcher Ø  Common procedural and legal requirements Ø  Numerous detailed case illustrations

4

Best Practices

v  Use an explicit set of suitability criteria v  OMPE Guideline #2:

“In addressing the referral question(s), psychologists endeavor to apply the criterion standard as defined by statutory, regulatory, administrative, and/or other authoritative sources.”

v  California POST Psychological Screening Dimensions v Brown v. Sandy City Appeal Board (Utah Court of Appeals, 2014)

Brown v. Sandy City Appeal Board

“We view Zelig’s consideration of the California POST standards as analogous to the way that a court might use case law from sister jurisdictions—not as binding authority but as a reference to consider how other courts have analyzed and resolved a particular issue. Here, California and Utah apparently share a common requirement that peace officers be mentally fit for duty. However, unlike Utah, California has provided additional guidance for evaluating officers’ mental competence.”

5

Best Practices

v  Use an explicit set of suitability criteria v  Be familiar with the job and its demands,

working conditions, stressors, and culture OMPE Guideline #3:

“Psychologists seek to understand the psychologically relevant demands and working conditions of the examinee's position.”

Best Practices


working conditions, stressors, and culture v  Use multiple sources of assessment data OMPE Guideline #10:

“Psychologists strive to use multiple sources of relevant and reliable information collected according to established principles and methods.”

6

Assessment Data Sources: The “Basic Model”

v  Psychological tests v  A broadband measure of psychopathology

and personality/behavioral problems

v  A broadband measure of normal traits

v  Personal history and collateral background information

v  Clinical interview v  Mental health records

Best Practices


working conditions, stressors, and culture v  Use multiple sources of assessment data v  Choose tests shown from published studies

in peer-reviewed journals to contain valid measures of constructs relevant to the selection criteria

7

Published, Peer-Reviewed MMPI-2-RF Police Officer Studies • 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. doi: 10.1007/s11896-015-9172-7

• Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2014). Underreporting on the MMPI-2-RF in ahigh demand police officer selection content: An illustration. PsychologicalAssessment, 26, 1044-1049. doi: 10.1037/pas0000013

• Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice andBehavior, 34, 985-1004. doi: 10.1177/0093854807301224

• Tarescavage, A. M., Brewster, J., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.(2015). Use of pre-hire MMPI-2-RF police candidate scores to predictsupervisor ratings of post-hire performance. Assessment, 22, 411-428. doi: 10.1177/1073191114548445

Published, Peer-Reviewed MMPI-2-RF Police Officer Studies • Tarescavage, A. M, Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory Restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors ifpolice officer problem behavior. Assessment, 22, 116-132. doi:10.1177/1073191114534885

• Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2016). A proratingmethod for estimating MMPI-2-RF Scores from MMPI responses: Examination ofscore fidelity and illustration of empirical utility in the PERSEREC Police IntegrityStudy sample. Assessment, 23, 173-190. doi: 10.1177/1073191115575070

• Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., Gupton, H. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015).Criterion validity and clinical utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in assessments of police officercandidates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 382-394. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.995800

• Tarescavage, A. M., Fischler, G. L., Cappo, B., Hill, D. O., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behaviorand collateral self-report test scores. Psychological Assessment, 27, 125-137.doi: 10.1037/pas0000041

8

Test Validity

Ø  Tests are not validated Ø  Inferences derived from test scores (i.e.,

test score meanings) are validated Ø  Evidence of validity derives from

findings of a meaningful association between the datum and the inference (Ebel, 1961)

Test Validity

Ø  Not all validated inferences are necessarily relevant to the selection criteria

Ø  AES > 65T: “Reports an above-average interest in activities or occupations of an aesthetic or literary nature (e.g., writing, music, the theater)"

9

Best Practices

v  Conduct the interview after reviewing the findings from psychological testing and personal history/background investigation

Best Practices


v  Avoid repeating test items verbatim; probe for clarification in a way that doesn’t explicitly link the question with the test

10

Best Practices


v  Avoid repeating test items verbatim; probe for clarification in a way that doesn’t explicitly link the question with the test

v  Do not conflate test-based findings of “defensiveness” with either deception or an invalid test protocol

Underreporting • Police candidates have higher mean scores on

underreporting scales, and lower mean scoresand variance on substantive scales, due to:

• Pre-selection factors (e.g., stable workhistory, civil service exams, backgroundinvestigations, pre-offer testing) leadingto a comparatively well-adjusted sample

• Secondary gains perceived to beassociated with a positive presentation

11

Police Candidate Comparison Group

VRIN-r T RIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

Mean 41 52 44 45 45 46 46 59 63Standard Dev 7 6 4 5 6 6 7 13 8

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

PoliceCandidateCG (n = 2074)

F

Interpreting Underreporting Scales

Some underreporting is expected v  Absence of underreporting is uncommon and

a possible red flag

Impact of underreporting is asymmetrical: v  Non-elevated substantive scale scores

cannot be interpreted as indicating the absence of problems assessed by those scales

v  Elevated substantive scales can be interpreted but may underestimate problems

12


In standard interpretive guidelines, possible underreporting is indicated by:

v  L-r > 65T (32.7% of police candidate CG) v  K-r > 60T (67.3% of police candidate CG)

Standard guidelines written broadly; intended to apply first and foremost in clinical settings

13


L-r=37: 4.0% Test-taker claims no uncommon virtues L-r=81: 10.1% of comparison group members score at this level or higher L-r=86: 5.8% L-r=91: 2.6% L-r=95: 1.1% L-r=100: 0.1% L-r=105: No member of the comparison group scores at this level

14


K-r < 31: < 0.1% of police candidate CG members score this low

K-r=35-38: < 1% K-r=42-45: < 4% K-r=69: 37.9% of CG members score at or above this level K-r=72: 17.6%

Rival Explanations for Elevated Underreporting Scores

v  The candidate is well-adjusted and endowed with positive virtues and presents these qualities accurately

v  The candidate is well-adjusted and endowed with positive virtues but exaggerates or otherwise distorts these qualities

v  The candidate claims but does not actually possess these qualities

15

Best Practices

v  Interpret subclinical scores only as justified by empirical findings

Police Candidate Comparison Group

EID T HD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Mean 36 44 46 40 42 41 44 45 47 38 44 43Standard Dev 6 7 7 5 7 6 10 7 7 6 7 8

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

PoliceCandidateCG (n = 2074)

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

16

Best Practices v  Use a model for integrating data across

sources v  Ensures standardization and

consistency across evaluations v  Facilitates description of the decision-

making process to stakeholders v  Allows for a deliberate and

transparent sequencing of integrative steps, placing those with the highest known validity at the start and ending with the determination of suitability

Best Practices v  Use a model for integrating data across

sources v  OMPE Guideline #10, Rationale:

“When integrating data from multiple sources, psychologists strive to give preferential weight to relevant data with the highest known reliability and validity.”

19

Data Integration Model

Spilberg & Corey (POST Psychological Screening Manual, 2017)

1.  Assess protocol validity2.  Identify risk-related findings from the

substantive scales3.  Identify risk-related findings from the

background and personal historyinformation

4.  Identify risk-related findings from theclinical interview

Data Integration Model

Spilberg & Corey (POST Psychological Screening Manual, 2017)

5.  Determine if any divergent findings aresufficient to mitigate one or more risk-related findings

6.  Reach a suitability determination

20

Step 1: Assess Protocol Validity

Validity requires reliability The greatest threat to reliability of an individual’s test results is: v  Lack of thoroughness and attention in answering the

items (i.e., unanswered items and response inconsistency)

Ø  May be affected by reading comprehension

v  Deception

Assessing for Deception

v  Compare self-report information across sources (e.g., polygraph, background investigator interview, clinical interview, and third-party sources)

v  Compare historically verifiable test items with background and other self-report information

21

Step 2: Assess Substantive Scales

v OMPE Guideline #8: “Psychologists seek to select and rely on

assessment tools validated for use with a population appropriate to the evaluation.”

Step 2: Assess Substantive Scales

Identify and interpret risk-related findings, using general adult and comparison group norms v  Assess for significance against standard norms (no

adjustment to cutoff scores)

v  Assess for significance against comparison group group norms

v  Assess for convergent, divergent, and complementary findings

22

Interpreting Moderate Scores

v  Do not infer meaning without adequate evidence of correlations between subclinical scores and other measures of the same construct

v  Never infer psychopathology from a subclinical score even if it is substantially deviant from the reference group mean

Moderate Elevations

v  Scores in this range reflect a comparatively high level of the construct assessed by each scale

v  Generally, 5% or less of comparison group members scores within this range or higher (low cutoff ~2 SD’s above the comparison group mean)

v  Further scrutiny is recommended (based on interview, other test data, background, other collateral sources) when cutoff is met

23

Step 3: Assess Background Findings

Evaluate personal history information from all sources to determine:

v  If any information meets agency standards for disqualification

v  How the information is convergent with, divergent from, and complementary to the risk-related findings from psychological testing

Step 4: Assess Interview Findings

Evaluate interview findings and clinical observations to determine:

v  If any information meets agency standards for disqualification

v  How the information is convergent with, divergent from, and complementary to the risk-related findings from testing and personal history

24

Step 5: Mitigation Analysis

Determine if any divergent findings are sufficient to mitigate risk-related findings

v  Principle of behavioral consistency (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968)

v  Past performance is relevant in predicting future performance only if in similar contexts

v  In the absence of samples from a similar context, validated signs (tests) are superior to dissimilar samples

Step 6: Reach a Suitability Determination Determine whether the surviving risk-related findings warrant disqualification

v  Are they relevant to the selection criteria?

v  Are they consequential to the hiring authority?

v  Are they within or outside the hiring authority’s risk tolerance?

25

Demonstration Case: Mr. M

Case Material

Background information v  Agency-provided background investigation report

v  Self-reported history (provided in interview)

v  Mental health treatment records (PCP)

MMPI-2-RF (PCIR) Normal-range personality testing Clinical interview

26

Integration Model Applied

1.  Assess protocol validity

27


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

K-rL-rFBS-rFsFp-rF-rTRIN-rVRIN-r

Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-rTRIN-rF-rFp-r

Variable Response InconsistencyTrue Response InconsistencyInfrequent ResponsesInfrequent Psychopathology Responses

0

34

100

FsFBS-rRBS

Infrequent Somatic ResponsesSymptom ValidityResponse Bias Scale

1

50

100

0

42

100

0

42

100

11

50

100

5

42

100

8

76

100

5

50

100

120

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 0

T Score:

34Percent True (of items answered): %

454544

F

41 52 46 5946

7 6546 6 137

F

Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074

---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

28 92787562 9081Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:

L-rK-r

Uncommon VirtuesAdjustment Validity

RBS

13

69

100

63

8

8232

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report02/20/2015, Page 2 Mr. M

28


1.  Assess protocol validitya.  No indications of response inconsistency or

overreporting on MMPI-2-RF

b. Possible underreporting:

– L-r=76T, K-r=69T

» Elevated L-r is associated primarily with decreases in behavioral-externalizing domain (BXD, RC4, JCP, DISC-r, as well as RC3; Detrick & Chibnall, 2014)

– Normal-range personality testing also showsmoderate underreporting


2.  Assess substantive scale findings

29


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EIDTHDBXD

Emotional/Internalizing DysfunctionThought DysfunctionBehavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction

1

33

100

RCdRC1RC2RC3RC4

DemoralizationSomatic ComplaintsLow Positive EmotionsCynicismAntisocial Behavior

RC6RC7RC8RC9

Ideas of PersecutionDysfunctional Negative EmotionsAberrant ExperiencesHypomanic Activation

2

47

100

2

46

100

6

50

100

1

48

100

0

34

100

4

49

100

5

47

100

0

43

100

3

56

100

0

34

100

7

42

100

120

110


36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43

6 7577 6 710 7 76 8

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:

47 82928182 29 7772 75 9545 47



30

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

NFC ANPAXYSTW MSFBRFNUCGIC HPC HLPCOG SFD

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

MLSGICHPCNUCCOG

MalaiseGastrointestinal ComplaintsHead Pain ComplaintsNeurological ComplaintsCognitive Complaints

0

38

100

AXYANPBRFMSF

AnxietyAnger PronenessBehavior-Restricting FearsMultiple Specific Fears

SUIHLPSFDNFCSTW

Suicidal/Death IdeationHelplessness/HopelessnessSelf-DoubtInefficacyStress/Worry

1

50

100

0

41

100

0

42

100

0

46

100

0

45

100

0

42

100

0

40

100

0

36

100

0

44

100

0

36

100

0

39

100

0

36

100

0

43

100

Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing

120

110

42 43464446 46 4342 41 4541 41 4544

6 5764 2 44 6 46 5 85


---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

------

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

MLS SUI

63 93658395 99.3 9088 50 9448 81 2588

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




31

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

SAV MECAESACTAGGSUBJCP FML DSFIPP SHY

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

FMLIPPSAVSHYDSF

Family ProblemsInterpersonal PassivitySocial AvoidanceShynessDisaffiliativeness

2

57

100

JCPSUBAGGACT

Juvenile Conduct ProblemsSubstance AbuseAggressionActivation

AESMEC

Aesthetic-Literary InterestsMechanical-Physical Interests

0

37

100

1

39

100

1

45

100

1

50

100

0

34

100

1

44

100

1

43

100

0

44

100

7

69

100

2

45

100

InterpersonalExternalizing Interest

120

110

48 43444245 46 4146 46 5642

9 7966 6 68 5 118

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

90 47428490 5 8045 90 9179


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




32

MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

INTR-rNEGE-rDISC-rPSYC-rAGGR-r

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

AGGR-rPSYC-rDISC-rNEGE-rINTR-r

Aggressiveness-RevisedPsychoticism-RevisedDisconstraint-RevisedNegative Emotionality/Neuroticism-RevisedIntroversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised

14

69

100

5

47

100

1

36

100

9

56

100

1

47

100

120

110

51 47395044

7 7687

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


99.5 62508780



33

MMPI-2-RF 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-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of theMMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 0 34 50CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r

Over-Reporting 42 42 50 42 50F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS

Under-Reporting 76 69L-r K-r

Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 47 38 46 42 41 50RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

Emotional Dysfunction 33 46 45 40 42 36EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC

34 47RC2 INTR-r

34 36 44 39 43 36 36RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r

Thought Dysfunction 48 43THD RC6

56RC8

47PSYC-r

Behavioral Dysfunction 50 49 57 50BXD RC4 JCP SUB

42 45 39 69 56RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r

Interpersonal Functioning 37 47 34 43 44 44FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF

Interests 45 69AES MEC


34

Comparison Group Findings

Job-Relevant Correlates

35

Risk-Related Findings: Normal-Range Personality Testing

Ø  Comparatively lower interpersonal awareness and situational sensitivity


3.  Assess background findings

a.  Collateral sources describe him as“dependable, honest, has integrity, anddevoted to his children and family.”

b. Also described “as having the ability to talkto people which in one instance was also aconcern of talking too much while attendingthe police academy.”

36


3.  Assess background findingsc. Discharged November 2010 from military

for using Spice, described as “taking a hitoff of a black and mild.”

d. Filed bankruptcy in 2008 ($33,000)e.  Car repossession (attributed to ex-wife)f.  Several past due or seriously past due

accountsg. Incarcerated for one year as a juvenile due

to high school vandalism ($10,000 damage)


3.  Assess background findingsh.  On personal history statement, failed to

answer an item (defrauding an innkeeper)i.  Divorced prior yearj. Has custody of three children from his

previous marriage; has new child withcurrent girlfriend

k.  Brother-in-law of girlfriend, also a neighbor,reported hearing them argue

37

Integration Model Applied 4.  Assess interview findings

a.  Mr. M described a tumultuous upbringing by atwice-divorced mother and violent stepfatherin a home in which marijuana was usedregularly

b. He also smoked marijuana throughout highschool

c. Twice expelled in high school for fighting andvandalism, and suspended repeatedly forfighting

d. Stated, “I was the bully that picked on thebullies.”


4.  Assess interview findingse.  Diagnosed with ADHD as a child; took

prescribed stimulants during first year of highschool, after which, he said, he outgrew it

f.  Filed for a service-connected disability sixyears earlier; diagnosed with PTSD, anxietyand depression; reported a “40%” disabilityrating for PTSD

g. Reported at least weekly night terrors; sleepsonly 3-4 hours per night due to insomnia

38


4.  Assess interview findingsh.  On SPH, reported never being in counseling; in

interview he reported attending a 30-day rehabcenter for alcohol abuse while in the military

i.  Reported receiving a prescription from VApsychiatrist for mental health symptoms butcould not recall what they were; stopped takingthem more than a year before this evaluation


4.  Assess interview findingsj. Reported being offended by a comment from a

fellow serviceman concerning collateral deathsof Afghan women and children; he said he hithim in the face and broke his jaw, and saidthere were no disciplinary consequences

k.  Reported that when his commanding officerquestioned him about the use of Spice, theofficer grabbed his shirt and, in turn, Mr. Massaulted him (also without consequences)

39


4.  Assess interview findingsl.  Screening psychologist characterized her

impression of Mr. M in the interview asarrogant, inappropriately familiar, andflippant

m.  She said Mr. M expressed annoyance andirritation in response to her interviewquestions


5.  Mitigation Analysis:a.  Test findings indicating:

1) Overly assertive/domineering behavior2) Low interpersonal awareness and

sensitivity3) Possible underreporting

b. Background and interview findings are convergentwith these risk-related test findings:

1) Conflictual relationships in military2) Marital altercations overhead by neighbor3) PTSD with ongoing sleep impairment

40


6.  Suitability Determinationv  Are the risk-related findings relevant to the

selection criteria?

v  Emotional regulation & stress tolerance

v  Social competence

v  Are they consequential? v  Are the divergent findings sufficient to mitigate

the risks?

Demonstration Case: Mr. P

41

Case Material


v  Self-reported history (written questionnaire and interview)

v  Mental health treatment records (relationship counseling)




42


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-rTRIN-rF-rFp-r


5

58

100

FsFBS-rRBS


1

50

100

0

42

100

0

42

100

9

65

100

6

45

100

3

52

100

1

33

100

120

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 0

T Score: F


454544

F

F

41 52 46 5946

7 6546 6 137

F


---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


L-rK-r


RBS

11

62

100

63

8

4749


MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 2 Mr. P.

43



44


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EIDTHDBXD


0

30

100

RCdRC1RC2RC3RC4


RC6RC7RC8RC9


1

42

100

2

46

100

9

57

100

1

48

100

0

34

100

5

52

100

2

41

100

1

56

100

2

52

100

1

38

100

18

63

100

120

110


36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43

6 7577 6 710 7 76 8

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


24 68929682 29 8747 93 8968 99



45


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

MLSGICHPCNUCCOG


0

38

100

AXYANPBRFMSF


SUIHLPSFDNFCSTW


3

58

100

1

53

100

0

42

100

0

46

100

0

45

100

0

42

100

0

40

100

3

51

100

0

44

100

3

52

100

2

51

100

3

48

100

2

63

100


120

110

42 43464446 46 4342 41 4541 41 4544

6 5764 2 44 6 46 5 85


---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

------

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

MLS SUI

63 99908395 99.3 9088 96 9497 97 7799.7

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




46


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

FMLIPPSAVSHYDSF


1

50

100

JCPSUBAGGACT


AESMEC


0

37

100

6

67

100

0

37

100

1

50

100

3

46

100

0

37

100

0

36

100

0

44

100

9

78

100

4

56

100


120

110

48 43444245 46 4146 46 5642

9 7966 6 68 5 118

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

76 4799.15690 65 5722 90 10096


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




47


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:



11

56

100

0

32

100

5

47

100

13

69

100

1

47

100

120

110

51 47395044

7 7687

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


86 2929980



48


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-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of theMMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 0 58 65 F

CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r





34 32RC2 INTR-r



52RC8

47PSYC-r






49

Clinically Significant Scores v  Interpretation relies on standard cutoffs

(> 65T) and the standard inferences contained in the Manual for Administration, Scoring and Interpretation

v  Correlate-based inferences of clinically significant scores may have particular implications for public safety functions

Clinical Findings

50



51



Ø  Comparatively lower self-discipline and rule-observing behavior

Ø  Comparatively lower interpersonal awareness and reflective temperament

Ø  Comparatively lower impulse control Ø  Findings correlate with a substantially greater

risk of involuntary termination as a police officer

52


3.  Assess background findingsa.  Employed in a non-weapon-carrying federal

government position

b. No negative background information other thanreprimand in most recent position for speaking “toosternly” to his coworkers, and several noisecomplaints to local police regarding barking dogs

c. Reported recent marital separation and mentalhealth treatment for anger management problems

d. On PsyQ, he reported two restraining orders issuedagainst him in past 18 months (wife, neighbor)


3.  Assess background findingse.  One of the three therapists reported that Mr. P

engages in “intimidating and controlling behaviors”that led his wife to seek shelter. He described Mr. P’s behavior toward his wife in counseling sessions as“mean and abusive,” and “astonishingly oblivious tothe caustic tone of voice and demeaning ways inwhich he spoke” to and about her.

f.  Therapist reported “grave concerns” about Mr. Pbecoming a police officer

53


4.  Assess interview findings

a.  Reported receiving mental health treatmentfrom three providers over the past year

b.  Demonstrated very poor insight into hismarital and anger management problems(violence and/or threats of violence)


5.  Mitigation Analysis:

v Findings are predominantly convergent v No divergent findings of sufficient reliability

and quality to mitigate the risk-related findings

54

Integration Model Applied 6.  Suitability Determination

v  Are the risk-related findings relevant to the selection criteria?

v  Emotional regulation & stress tolerance v  Social competence v  Impulse control v  Integrity v  Substance abuse & other risk-taking

behavior v  Are they consequential? v  Are the divergent findings sufficient to mitigate

the risks?

Demonstration Case: Mr. G

55

Case Material


v  Self-reported history (written questionnaire and interview)




56


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-rTRIN-rF-rFp-r


1

39

100

FsFBS-rRBS


0

42

100

0

42

100

1

47

100

11

50

100

6

45

100

1

42

100

3

42

100

120

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 0

T Score:


454544

F

41 52 46 5946

7 6546 6 137

F


---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


L-rK-r


RBS

12

66

100

63

8

6249


MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 2

57



58


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EIDTHDBXD


1

33

100

RCdRC1RC2RC3RC4


RC6RC7RC8RC9


1

42

100

1

42

100

10

60

100

0

39

100

0

34

100

11

68

100

0

34

100

0

43

100

2

52

100

1

38

100

8

43

100

120

110


36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43

6 7577 6 710 7 76 8

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


47 68849857 29 99.521 75 8968 57



59


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

MLSGICHPCNUCCOG


0

38

100

AXYANPBRFMSF


SUIHLPSFDNFCSTW


1

50

100

0

41

100

0

42

100

0

46

100

0

45

100

0

42

100

0

40

100

0

36

100

0

44

100

1

43

100

0

39

100

2

46

100

0

43

100


120

110

42 43464446 46 4342 41 4541 41 4544

6 5764 2 44 6 46 5 85


---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

------

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

MLS SUI

63 93658395 99.3 9088 50 9478 81 6488

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




60


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

FMLIPPSAVSHYDSF


4

70

100

JCPSUBAGGACT


AESMEC


2

49

100

4

53

100

3

56

100

2

55

100

5

52

100

0

37

100

5

55

100

0

44

100

7

69

100

2

45

100


120

110

48 43444245 46 4146 46 5642

9 7966 6 68 5 118

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

99 90899898 92 5793 90 9179


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_




61


20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30


Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:



8

47

100

6

49

100

2

40

100

13

69

100

0

38

100

120

110

51 47395044

7 7687

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---


Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_


39 72679955



62


2.  Assess substantive scale findingsa.  BXD=60T

b.  RC4=68T

c.  JCP=70T

d.  SUB=55T

e.  AGG=56Tf.  DISC-r=69T

g.  RC3=34T

63


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-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of theMMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 0 39 50CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r





34 49RC2 INTR-r



52RC8

38PSYC-r






64

Synopsis

65

Clinical Findings

Clinical Findings

66



67



68


Ø  Comparatively lower self-discipline and rule-observing behavior

Ø  Comparatively lower morale and general happiness

Ø  Findings correlated with poor relationships with co-workers, alcohol abuse, and aggressive behavior


3.  Assess background findings

a.  Up to age 19, rule-abiding, prosocialb.  Ages 19-25

– Beginning in his freshman year in college, whileaway from home for the first time, he was arrestedfor underage DUI on the college campus.

– A year later, he was arrested on a charge ofinterfering with police officers during a politicalprotest event at the college. (The record associatedwith this arrest was subsequently expunged.)

69

Background Findings (cont’d) – He worked as a sales associate for two retail

clothing stores to help pay for college, but he wasfired from both positions for “no-call” and “no-show” absences that, according to Mr. G’sstatement to the background investigator, were aresult of hangovers from late night drinking andpartying.

– At the age of 23, he dropped out of college withoutcompleting his degree.

Background Findings (cont’d)

c.  Age 25-current– At the age of 25, he stopped drinking alcohol.

– Collateral sources confirm his abstinence fromalcohol use since age 25.

– Returned to college at the age of 29 and completedit within the prior year.

– In addition to attending college and working as asecurity officer, Mr. G volunteered at two policeagencies, providing mentorship to at-risk teens injuvenile diversion programs.

70

Background Findings (cont’d)

Background investigator’s summary:

“[Mr. G] appears to be an overall responsible, honest, reliable, hardworking and trustworthy person. He was responsive and cooperative during the background investigation. He made lots of mistakes and was irresponsible when he was young, but he appears to have learned from his mistakes and has worked hard to improve his life by volunteering to help other young people avoid the same mistakes he made.”


4.  Assess interview findingsa.  Claimed participation in weekly AA meetings since

he quit drinking seven years prior.

b.  Evidenced strong personal insight, self-reflection,and acceptance of personal accountability.

c.  No discrepancies between self-report andbackground information were identified.

71

Interview Findings (continued)

d.  Described his motivation for becoming a policeofficer as stemming from his commitment tosobriety: “Being of service to others helps mecombat my narcissism, and narcissism will lead meto think I can drink again. I’m happiest when I’mthinking of others.”

e.  No indications of naïveté were found in theinterview.

Interview Findings (continued)

f.  Persuasively expressed remorse and accountabilityfor his past (remote) irresponsibility (e.g.,displayed a strong, non-self-referentialunderstanding of the ways that his past misconductposed harm to others).

72


5.  Mitigation Analysis:v  Strong evidence of prosocial behavior in the past 8

years and no evidence of contemporary negative behavior in the past 7 years

v  Behavioral-internalizing scale elevations derive almost entirely from behavior 8 to 12 years prior (i.e., static risk)

v  No evidence of contemporary attitudes and behavior associated with the targeted constructs

v  Strong evidence of a “redemption period” (Blumstein & Nakamura, 2009)



v  Are they consequential?

73



v  Are they consequential? v  Are the divergent findings sufficient to mitigate

the risks?

Questions?

75

Instructions for submitting your request for APA Continuing Education (CE) credit

Pearson will provide an APA Certificate if you . . .

• attend the entire 90-minute livewebinar presentation.

• return your evaluation within7 business days of the webinar.

Pearson is unable to providean APA Certificate if you . . .

• attend less than the entire 90-minute live webinar presentation.

• return your evaluation later than7 business days after the webinar.

• A copy of the CE Evaluation form is attached to your Ready Talk webinar registration and meeting reminder. You can also find a copy of the form online at PearsonClinical/MMPI2RF (located at the bottom of the Training tab)

• Webinar attendance is confirmed by Pearson’s webinar system.

• Your APA Certificate will be emailed to no later than 10 business days after receiving your completed evaluation.

• Questions? Contact Darlene Davis at [email protected]

case demonstrations using the · case demonstrations using the ----- ----- police ... high demand...

Documents