In this discussion, we reviewed two police candidate interpretive reports; one for Mr. C. and one for Ms. D. Based on the MMPI-2-RF assessment results, the following professional conclusions and recommendations have been made:
Mr. C:
I have examined Mr. C. and it is in my professional opinion that this person is psychologically at risk for exercising appropriate judgement and restraint to be certified as a police officer.
This candidate reports being physically aggressive, violent, and has “lost control” in certain situations. This candidate reported acute conflictual relationships with family. This candidate illustrates relatively abnormal degrees of self-doubt, unusual thinking—specifically odd perceptions and thoughts. This candidate demonstrates elevated computations in relation to behavioral issues—specifically excitability. This candidate’s responses indicated a level of physically violent behavior that is abnormal and unsuitable for this job description/position. The candidate’s response level for aggression was well out of the normal range for a police officer candidate. Additionally, this candidate’s response to interpersonal prompts signified poor interpersonal functioning and high social avoidance.
Based on such results, this candidate poses a huge threat to himself and others. This candidate reveals a severe lack in emotional control and stress tolerance. His routine task performance, decision-making, and ability to make sound judgement calls will likely be adversely impacted. There are also concerns about this candidate’s ability to accept feedback, assertiveness and social competence aptitudes, capability and willingness to work with a team, and overall integrity. This candidate shows signs of poor impulse control and likely challenges with dependability, conscientiousness, and substance use/abuse.
Because of the initial assessment results, I am recommending that this candidate undergo the Big Five Personality assessment (FFM), which will further asses his conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience (Gregory, 2014). Depending on the results generated by this assessment, we will be able to compare results and better conclude why this candidate is or is not the right choice for this career path. However, as of right now, I am advising against accepting this candidate into the program.
Ms. D:
I have examined Ms. D., and though I have slight reservations, it is in my professional opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgement and restraint to be certified as a police officer.
My professional recommendation comes with some contingencies. Before being certified and appointed a police officer, Ms. D. needs to undergo a retest of the MMPI-2-RF, as well as some additional assessments. Her responses were largely uninterpretable due to under-reporting. While casting one’s self in a positive light is not typically psychologically damaging and/or concerning, this candidate took responses to an extreme, which resulted in abnormal response ranges. It needs to be determined whether or not this was intentional under-reporting. If the under-reporting was intentional, this could compromise this candidate’s career opportunity, as it signifies a lack in integrity, morality, and self-examination.
An additional assessment I would have Ms. D. undertake is the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI). This assessment asks over 300 “true-false” questions and measures myriad personality and behavioral characteristics (Gregory, 2014). It is largely applicable to potential law enforcement candidates, such as Mr. C., and Ms. D. It is imperative to get as much accurate information as possible, particularly from Ms. D, so that a definitive recommendation can be made.
References:
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Comments