Use of Prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Police Candidate Scores to Predict Supervisor Ratings of Posthire Performance.

548445

research-article2014

ASMXXX10.1177/1073191114548445AssessmentTarescavage et al.

Article

Use of Prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Police Candidate Scores to Predict Supervisor Ratings of Posthire Performance

Assessment 2015, Vol. 22(4) 411–428 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1073191114548445 asm.sagepub.com

Anthony M. Tarescavage1, JoAnne Brewster2, David M. Corey3,4, and Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

Abstract We examined associations between prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form (MMPI2-RF) scores and posthire performance ratings for a sample of 131 male police officers. Substantive scale scores in this sample were meaningfully lower than those obtained by the test’s normative sample and substantially range restricted, but scores were consistent with those produced by members of the police candidate comparison group (Corey & Ben-Porath). After applying a statistical correction for range restriction, we found several associations between MMPI-2-RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings of job-related performance. Findings for scales from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains of the test were particularly strong. For example, scales assessing low positive emotions and social avoidance were associated with several criteria that may be affected by lack of engagement with one’s environment and other people, including problems with routine task performance, decision making, assertiveness, conscientiousness, and social competence. Implications of these findings for assessment science and practice are discussed. Keywords MMPI-2-RF, police candidates, public safety screening, personnel selection, range restriction

Although most police officers execute their duties in an effective and ethical way, infrequent incidents of problem behavior meaningfully affect public safety and public trust in the police force (Bradford, Jackson, & Stanko, 2009; Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Mastrofski, Reisig, & McCluskey, 2002; Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, & Eggins, 2012). For these reasons, employment screening for police officers is substantially more invasive and comprehensive than in other personnel selection settings, and relatively stringent standards for this process are delineated by local, state, and federal governments (Cochrane, Tett, & Vandecreek, 2003). The federal government advocated in 1973, for example, that all police officer applicants participate in a screening process that includes at a minimum one test of mental ability, a background investigation, an oral interview, and a psychological evaluation (National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals). Since this recommendation, psychological assessment of police officer candidates has become standard practice (Scharf, 2006). Results from a recent national survey of both state and local

law enforcement agencies indicate that a psychological evaluation is required by 72% of departments overall and 98% of departments serving at least 25,000 residents (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). Several states have legislated or regulated specific standards for the psychological screening of police candidates. Corey and Borum (2013) reviewed the screening criteria for these states and concluded that California has the most comprehensive and detailed standards for peace officer preemployment psychological evaluations. The California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) regulates the screening process for 1

Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA 3 Corey & Stewart, Portland, OR, USA 4 Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, 144 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on August 9, 2015

412

Assessment 22(4)

police officer candidates in their state. According to POST regulation 1955, all police officer candidates “shall be evaluated, at a minimum, against job-related [italics added] psychological constructs herein incorporated by reference contained and defined in the POST California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (2005).” To this end, psychological testing is mandatory, and all police officer candidates are administered at least two self-report instruments: one designed to assess normal personality features and the other a measure of abnormal functioning (California Commission on POST [1955] Regulation). In accordance with the just-cited regulation 1955, a preemployment evaluation must assess the following job-related psychological domains: Social Competence, Teamwork, Adaptability and Flexibility, Conscientiousness and Dependability, Impulse Control, Integrity and Ethics, Emotional Regulation and Stress Tolerance, Decision Making and Judgment, Assertiveness and Persuasiveness, and Avoiding Substance Use and Other Risk-Taking Behavior (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 2005). Preemployment psychological testing is common in a number of other states as well. Cochrane et al. (2003) surveyed police departments across the country and found that the most frequently administered psychological test was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2), which was used in more than 70% of police officer candidate evaluations. The MMPI-2–Restructured Form (MMPI2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008-2011) is an updated version of the MMPI-2, which was released in 2008. Construction of the inventory began shortly after release of the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales (Tellegen et al., 2003), which are psychometrically improved measures derived from the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales that were virtually unchanged since the release of the original MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943). Several studies have demonstrated that the RC Scales have improved construct validity relative to the Clinical Scales, both in terms of convergent and discriminant validity (e.g., Arbisi, Sellbom, & BenPorath, 2008; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; Forbey & BenPorath, 2007; Handel & Archer, 2008; McCord & Drerup, 2011; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008; Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006; Wallace & Liljequist, 2005; Wygant et al., 2007). The MMPI-2-RF was designed to create a measure representative of all clinical constructs potentially assessed by the MMPI-2 item pool. Toward this end, the inventory was developed with updated test construction techniques similar to the ones used to construct the RC Scales. Two studies published to date support the utility of MMPI-2-RF scale scores in police officer selection. Sellbom, Fischler, and Ben-Porath (2007) investigated how prehire MMPI-2 scores, including the RC Scales that now form the core of the MMPI-2-RF, predicted posthire integrity problems and misconduct in a group of 291 male police

officers. They found statistically significant zero-order correlations ranging in magnitude from .15 to .19 between MMPI-2 Clinical Scale scores and future problems such as deceptiveness, conduct unbecoming, and inappropriate sexual attitudes. Findings for the RC Scales were generally more robust, with statistically significant correlational magnitudes ranging from .15 to .29 with similar problems, as well as citizen complaints, internal affairs complaints, and involuntary departure, among other negative outcomes. One other notable aspect of the Sellbom et al. (2007) study is these authors described and illustrated how test scores in their study were range restricted insofar as the composition of the hired officer sample was affected by several preselection and selection factors, a study characteristic that attenuated correlation coefficients. Preselection occurs before the police officer candidate undergoes the psychological evaluation, whereas selection occurs during the preemployment psychological evaluation. Factors that influence preselection include results of background investigations, employment interviews, civil service exams, and, in some jurisdictions, police academy performance. Selection factors, on the other hand, include the evaluators’ partial reliance on psychological test scores (including the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF) to make decisions regarding candidates’ suitability for employment as a police officer. For these reasons the range of scores in samples available for studies of this type is substantially restricted, which in turn results in correlations between prehire psychological tests scores and posthire criteria that are artifactually attenuated (i.e., diminished) insofar as their ability to serve as validity estimates is concerned (cf., Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Further restricting the range of scores, police officer candidates also have incentive to underreport psychological symptoms to appear mentally healthy in order to obtain employment (Carpenter & Raza, 1987; Hiatt & Hargrave, 1988). Sellbom et al. (2007) applied a formula derived by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) that yields estimates of correlation coefficients disattenuated for range restriction and found that corrected correlational magnitudes between RC Scale scores and misconduct ranged from .22 to .60, meaningfully higher than the uncorrected zero-order correlations ranging from .15 to .29 described earlier. Tarescavage, Corey, and Ben-Porath (2015) investigated the utility of MMPI-2-RF scores in a different sample using all the substantive scales of the inventory, including the Higher Order, Specific Problems, and PersonalityPsychopathology-5 Scales (in addition to the RC Scales). The sample included 136 male police officers for whom collateral information concerning the presence of problem behaviors during their initial probationary period of employment was available. These authors correlated MMPI-2-RF substantive scales with the available criteria and found that scales relevant to emotional problems and interpersonal functioning were the best predictors of problem behaviors


413

Tarescavage et al. mapped onto the previously described POST screening dimensions, including those problems relevant to emotional control, decision making/judgment, assertiveness, social competence, and conscientiousness. Tarescavage et al. (2015) also disattenuated the correlations they obtained for range restriction using the formula derived by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) and found that their magnitudes meaningfully increased as a result (cf. Sellbom et al., 2007).

Current Study The purpose of the current study is to further investigate the utility of prehire MMPI-2-RF substantive scale scores in the prediction of posthire problems, using a different sample and supervisor rating criteria. Whereas Tarescavage et al. (2015) used a sample of police officers from a police department located on the west coast of the United States, the current sample of police officers is from a police department in Virginia. Moreover, Tarescavage et al. (2015) examined the ability of the MMPI-2-RF to predict dichotomous problem behaviors resulting in negative performance ratings during probation and/or postprobationary disciplinary action, whereas the current study uses Likert-type supervisor ratings of police officer performance 2 years postprobation. We calculated zero-order correlations between MMPI2-RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings of posthire behavior, and we mapped the supervisor ratings onto the POST dimensions described earlier. These data can be used to identify psychological constructs measured by the test that are associated with job-related difficulties and to guide the use of the MMPI-2-RF in the context of preemployment evaluations of police officer candidates, particularly after integrating findings from other studies. In line with this goal, we interpreted the findings in the context of discovery as described by Reichenbach (1938), who argued for the merits of using scientific findings to generate hypotheses. To account for the effect of range restriction described earlier, we also calculated correlations disattenuated for range restriction, as done in previous studies in similar settings using the MMPI (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage et al., 2015) and Personality Assessment Inventory (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012).

Method Participants The initial sample included 149 hired police officers (131 males, 18 females) from two Virginia police departments who were administered the MMPI-2 and had collateral supervisor ratings of their second-year performance. Because of the small number of female officers, we only

conducted analyses with the male sample. We scored the MMPI-2-RF scales from MMPI-2 responses, which can be accomplished because all 338 MMPI-2-RF items are included in the MMPI-2 booklet. Past research has supported the score comparability of MMPI-2-RF scales derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008-2011; van der Heijden, Egger, Rossi, van der Veld, & Derksen, 2013). No male police officers produced invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols according to standard interpretive guidelines (CNS [Cannot Say] >14, VRIN-r [Variable Response Inconsistency] >79, TRIN-r [True Response Inconsistency] >79, F-r [Infrequent Responses] >119, and Fp-r [Infrequent Psychopathology Responses] >99; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008-2011), yielding a final sample of 131 hired male police officers. The sample ranged in age from 20 to 46 years (M = 26.3 years, SD = 4.9), and years of education ranged from 11 to 18 (M = 14.1 years, SD = 1.6). The vast majority of the sample was of Caucasian ethnic descent (92.3%), with the remaining individuals being characterized as African American (4.6%), Hispanic (2.3%), and Asian (0.8%). Half of the individuals were married (51.9%), and the remainder were single (44.2%), divorced (3.1%), or separated (0.8%). At the time of the supervisors’ ratings most officers were still employed (87.7%), but others were classified as having resigned but would not be rehired (6.2%), resigned and would be rehired (3.8%), and terminated (2.3%).

Measures MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008-2011) is a broadband self-report measure with 338 items and true–false response options. It has 51 scales, 9 of which assess protocol validity concerns, including random responding, acquiescent responding, counter-acquiescent responding, overreporting, and underreporting. The 40 substantive scales are organized hierarchically in five domains: (1) Emotional Dysfunction, (2) Thought Dysfunction, (3) Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction, (4) Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and (5) Interpersonal Functioning. At the broadest level of the hierarchical structure, the three Higher Order scales measure emotional, thought, and externalizing dysfunction (broadly defined). These scales are consistent with contemporary models defining the structure of psychopathology, which is marked by similar superordinate factors (Krueger & Markon, 2006; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008). At the next level of the hierarchy, the RC Scales measure core psychopathological constructs associated with the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales. Interpretation of the RC Scales is enhanced by the interpretive hierarchy’s next level, which includes the MMPI-2-RF’s Specific Problems Scales. These scales measure several narrower constructs, most of which are associated with constructs assessed by the RC Scales.


414

Assessment 22(4)

Rounding out the MMPI-2-RF, the Personality-Psychopathology-5 Scales measure broad domains of abnormal personality as delineated by Harkness and McNulty (1994) and recently reviewed by Harkness, Finn, McNulty, and Shields (2012). Finally, the test also has two Interest Scales, which were not included in the analyses. Supervisor Survey. After consultation with police chiefs and supervisory personnel at the sample sites, the second author created a supervisor survey of police officer performance with predominately Likert-style response options. The third author a priori selected for analysis 39 survey items that assessed constructs relevant to the California POST screening dimensions described earlier, as well as one global rating, in order to link the items to contemporary screening standards. We present the survey items, response options, and variable names used throughout this article in Table 1. Owing to the limitations of doing field research, rater reliability data were not available. Adverse Departure. We also created a dichotomous variable contrasting individuals who were still employed (87.7%) or resigned but would be rehired (3.8) versus those who terminated (2.3%) or resigned and would not be rehired (6.2%).

Procedure Supervisors completed the survey just described after they had observed officers’ behavior for a time period ranging from 1 month to 2.5 years (M = 1.1 years, SD = 0.5). At the time of the ratings, the officers ranged in years of employment from 1.0 to 2.6 years (M = 1.9, SD = 0.4). As indicated in Table 1, we reverse coded some of the items from the survey for the purpose of our analyses so that all survey items indicated dysfunctional behavior at the high end.

Data Analyses We first calculated means and standard deviations for the 40 MMPI-2-RF substantive scales (the interest scales were not included in this study) and compared the sample’s scores with those of the normative sample (which by definition has standardized T-score means and standard deviations of 50 and 10, respectively, for all scales) and the male police candidate comparison group (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014), which includes a small subset (1.3%) drawn from the officers who were the subjects of the current investigation. We also calculated means and standard deviations for the test’s underreporting scales, owing to the high base rates of this response style in this setting mentioned earlier. Mean differences of 5T or more between the current sample and comparison groups were considered to be of practical significance, consistent with traditional benchmarks for meaningful MMPI score differences (Graham, 2012).

Next, we calculated zero-order correlations between the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and the supervisor ratings. Because of range-restriction concerns described earlier, we also calculated correlations corrected for attenuation due to range-restriction using formulas derived by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). Three pieces of information are needed to apply the formula: (1) the zero-order correlation between the MMPI-2-RF scale score and supervisor rating criterion, (2) the standard deviation of the MMPI-2-RF scale score in this sample, and (3) the standard deviation of the MMPI2-RF scale score in the general population (i.e., the unrestricted standard deviations). For example, as presented in Table 2 and described later, the zero-order correlation between MMPI-2-RF Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) and a supervisor rating of an officer’s propensity to utilize training under stress (a desirable characteristic coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 = very often and 7 = rarely) was .27. The standard deviation in this sample for EID was 6.5T (the restricted standard deviation) and the general population standard deviation is by definition 10T (the unrestricted standard deviation). Using these values in the formula described by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) yields a corrected correlation of .40, which is the best estimate of the validity of EID scores as predictors of utilizing training under stress. Normative information has been used in this manner to estimate the unrestricted validities of scale scores in other studies (Hoffman, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2003; Sackett & Ostgaard, 1994).

Results Descriptive Findings We present means and standard deviations for the current sample along with those from the male police officer comparison group (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014) in the first four rows of Tables 2 through 4. As stated earlier, the means and standard deviations for all scales in the normative sample are (by definition) 50T and 10T, respectively. The current sample scored meaningfully lower (i.e., as defined by a T-score difference of 5 points or more) than the normative sample on a majority of substantive scales, with the exceptions of Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Anxiety (AXY), Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Social Avoidance (SAV), Disaffiliativeness (DSF), Aggressiveness (AGGR-r), Disconstraint (DISC-r), and Introversion (INTR-r). Substantive scale scores from this sample were comparable with those of the male police candidate comparison group reported by Corey and BenPorath (2014), as all scale scores in this sample were within 5 T-score points of the comparison group. The current sample produced range-restricted scores relative to the normative sample. The median standard deviation among the substantive scales was 6.6, which is


415

Tarescavage et al. Table 1. Supervisor Survey Questions and Response Options. Survey question Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Anger How often does this officer get angry at citizens? Utilizing Training Under Stress Does this officer “revert to training” when under stress? Excessive Force How often does this officer use excessive physical force? Emotional Problems Does this officer show any evidence of emotional problems? Amount of Stress Does this officer show any evidence of being under stress? Routine Task Performance Problems Navigation Does this officer have problems finding his or her way around town? Drawing Crime/Accident Is this officer able to make accurate drawings of Scenes crime or accident scenes? Following Driving Directions Can this officer follow directions to a location? Radio Operation How often does this officer need to have radio communications repeated? Writing/Paperwork How well does this officer complete his or her paperwork/report writing? Directing Traffic How well does this officer direct traffic? Marksmanship Rating of marksmanship Decision Making and Judgment Problems Disregarding Instructions How often does this officer “conveniently disregard” instructions? Decision Making Does this officer have any difficulties in making a decision? Accidental Injury How likely is this officer to be injured while on the job due to mistakes that he or she makes? Making Charges Later How often does this officer make charges that are Dismissed dismissed? Overlooking Violations How often does this officer overlook violations or fail to enforce code sections? Predicting Situational How often does this officer correctly predict the Outcomes outcome of a situation? Poor Common Sense How often does this officer use common sense in interpreting the law? Problem Solving/Judgment How good is this officer’s problem-solving/judgment in the execution of his or her duties? Suspicious Personality Traits Does this officer show any “paranoid” traits? (unwarranted, unhealthy suspiciousness) Feedback Acceptance Problems Feedback Acceptance How well does this officer accept feedback regarding his or her mistakes? Assertiveness Problems Assertiveness Is this officer more assertive or passive? Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Social Skills–Officers Does this officer get along with fellow officers? Social Skills–Public How good are these officers’ social skills with the public? Oral Communication How well does this officer communicate orally? Complains About Instructions How often does this officer complain about his or her instructions?

Response options 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = No evidence of problems; 7 = Significant evidence of problems 1 = No evidence of stress; 7 = Significant evidence of stress 1 = No problems; 7 = Has great difficulty 1 = No problems; 7 = Has great difficulty 1 = Almost always, 7 = Rarely 1 = Very often, 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very well, 7 = Very poorly 1 = Very well, 7 = Very poorly 1 = Excellent, 2 = Average, 3 = Much improvement needed 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very likely; 7 = Not very likely (R) 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely 1 = Very good; 7 = Very poor 1 = No evidence of paranoia; 7 = Clear evidence of paranoia 1 = Very well; 7 = Very poorly

1 = Assertive; 7 = Passive 1 = Almost always, 7 = Rarely 1 = Very good, 7 = Very poor 1 = Very well, 7 = Very poorly 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R) (continued)


416

Assessment 22(4)

Table 1. (continued) Survey question Social Skills–Overall

Rating of social skills

1 = Excellent, 2 = Average, 3 = Much improvement needed

Integrity Problems Trust in Officer Integrity/Ethics

Can you trust/depend on what this officer tells you? Does this officer perform his or her duties in an ethical manner? Conscientiousness and Commitment Problems Ambition How ambitious is this officer? Attention-to-Detail Finishing Assignments Initiative Documentation of Activities Substance Use Problems Alcohol/Drugs Impulse control problems Act Without Thinking Potential for Inappropriate Aggression

History of Inappropriate Aggression Global Rating Overall Performance Rating

Response options

How much attention does this officer pay to details? How often does this officer complete assignments? Is this officer’s behavior more often self-initiated or is his or her activity directed by others? How often does this officer fail to properly document his or her activities?

1 = Always; 7 = Rarely 1 = Always; 7 = Rarely

1 = Very ambitious; 7 = Not at all ambitious 1 = A great deal; 7 = Very little 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely 1 = Self-initiated; 7 = Directed by others 1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R)

To your knowledge, does this officer abuse alcohol/ drugs?

1 = Never; 7 = Often

Does this officer seem to act without thinking things through? Rating of potential for inappropriate aggression

1 = Very often; 7 = Rarely (R)

History of inappropriate aggressive interactions with others Overall performance rating

1 = Excellent impulse/anger control, 2 = Average impulse/anger control, 3 = Needs some improvement in the area of impulse/anger control, 4 = I worry about this officer’s ability to handle situations appropriately. 1 = No history, 2 = History

1 = Excellent, 2 = Average, 3 = Much improvement needed

Note. (R) indicates that these items were reverse coded for the current study so that all variable codings indicated dysfunctional behaviors at the high end.

approximately two thirds of the normative sample population standard deviation of 10. However, the current sample produced similar score variance when compared with the male law enforcement officer comparison group, which has a median standard deviation of 6.4. Regarding underreporting validity scale scores, the current sample scored meaningfully higher than the normative sample on Uncommon Virtues (L-r) (M = 58.5, SD = 12.6) and Adjustment Validity (K-r) (M = 62.5, SD = 8.4). The current sample scores on these scales, however, were consistent with those scores from the police candidate comparison group (L-r, M = 58.6, SD = 12.6; K-r, M = 62.9, SD = 8.0).

Correlations Zero-order and disattenuated correlations between MMPI2-RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings are

presented in Table 2 for the underreporting, Higher Order, RC, and Somatic/Cognitive Specific Problems Scales; in Table 3 for the Internalizing and Externalizing Specific Problem Scales; and in Table 4 for the Interpersonal Specific Problems Scales, Interest Scales, and PersonalityPsychopathology-5 Scales. In order to facilitate interpretation, the findings are summarized in reference to each of the five MMPI-2-RF substantive domains, which include (1) Emotional Dysfunction, (2) Thought Dysfunction, (3) Behavioral Dysfunction, (4) Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and (5) Interpersonal Functioning. A summary of interpreted correlates by performance domain is also presented in Table 5. Keeping with prior research, we defined practically meaningful zero-order correlations as r ≥ |.15|, the criterion used in a study of the MMPI in police officer selection (Sellbom et al., 2007) as well as a comprehensive MMPI-2


417


EID

THD

M 36.6 44.5 SD 6.5 6.8 Comparison group M 35.6 44.0 Comparison group SD 5.6 7.0 Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems .14 (.21) .00 (.00) Anger Utilizing Training .27** (.40) .04 (.06) Under Stress Excessive Force .00 (.00) –.04 (–.06) Emotional Problems .08 (.12) .03 (.04) Amount of Stress .23** (.34) –.12 (–.18) Routine Task Performance Problems Navigation .00 (.00) –.04 (–.06) Drawing Crime/ .11 (.17) .03 (.04) Accident Scenes Following Driving .07 (.11) .05 (.07) Directions Radio Operation .03 (.05) .00 (.00) Writing/Paperwork .19* (.29) .07 (.10) Directing Traffic .19* (.29) .03 (.04) Marksmanship .10 (.15) .19* (.27) Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Disregarding .07 (.11) –.05 (–.07) Instructions Decision Making .15 (.23) .04 (.06) Accidental Injury .12 (.18) .07 (.10) Making Charges .01 (.02) .00 (.00) Later Dismissed Overlooking .13 (.20) –.01 (–.01) Violations Predicting Situational .16 (.24) .22* (.32) Outcomes Poor Common Sense .18* (.27) .08 (.12) Problem Solving/ .20* (.30) .04 (.06) Judgment Suspicious .09 (.14) –.03 (–.04) Personality Traits Feedback Acceptance Problems Feedback Acceptance .12 (.18) .07 (.10) Assertiveness Problems Assertiveness .15 (.23) –.01 (–.01) Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Social Skills–Officers .11 (.17) –.01 (–.01) Social Skills–Public .12 (.18) .02 (.03) Oral Communication .22* (.33) .06 (.09) Complains About .03 (.05) –.10 (–.15) Instructions Social Skills–Overall .21* (.32) .04 (.06)

Higher Order

39.9 5.2 39.7 4.8 .14 (.26) .20* (.36) –.06 (–.11) .09 (.17) .21* (.38) –.05 (–.10) .03 (.06) .03 (.06) .04 (.08) .09 (.17) .12 (.23) –.03 (–.06) .09 (.17) .06 (.11) .05 (.10) –.01 (–.02) .12 (.23) .08 (.15) .11 (.21) .08 (.15) .07 (.13)

.10 (.19) .04 (.08) .07 (.13) .03 (.06) .11 (.21) .00 (.00) .09 (.17)

.10 (.13) .09 (.12) –.07 (–.09) .09 (.12) .05 (.07) –.02 (–.03) .08 (.11) .03 (.04) –.13 (–.17) .08 (.11) .07 (.09) .00 (.00) .02 (.03) –.05 (–.07) –.03 (–.04) –.09 (–.12) .02 (.03) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .04 (.05) .09 (.12)

.03 (.04) –.17 (–.22) .00 (.00) .06 (.08) –.09 (–.12) –.11 (–.14) .05 (.07)

RCd

46.0 7.6 46.5 7.4

BXD 41.0 6.5 40.5 6.4

RC2

.08 (.14)

.13 (.15)

.10 (.14)

–.04 (–.05) .08 (.11) –.03 (–.04) –.07 (–.10)

–.07 (–.12) .19* (.28) –.05 (–.06) –.02 (–.03) .20* (.30) .05 (.06) .08 (.14) .25** (.37) .01 (.01) –.11 (–.19) .12 (.18) –.19* (–.21) .14 (.21)

–.11 (–.15)

–.07 (–.08)

.04 (.07)

.06 (.08)

.13 (.18)

.05 (.07) .09 (.12)

.19* (.28)

–.01 (–.01)

–.06 (–.07) –.04 (–.04)

.03 (.04)

.09 (.12)

–.01 (–.01) .04 (.05) –.08 (–.11)

.01 (.01)

–.10 (–.14) .15 (.20) .11 (.15) .02 (.03)

.11 (.15)

.04 (.05) .12 (.16)

–.05 (–.07) .10 (.14) .06 (.08)

.10 (.14) .16 (.22)

44.2 7.3 45.0 7.5

RC4

.06 (.07)

.06 (.09)

.11 (.17) .18* (.27)

–.05 (–.06)

–.04 (–.04)

.19* (.28) .10 (.15)

.04 (.04) –.07 (–.08) –.05 (–.06)

–.11 (–.12)

–.08 (–.09) –.01 (–.01) .06 (.07) .09 (.10)

–.06 (–.07)

–.14 (–.16) –.05 (–.06)

–.08 (–.09) –.02 (–.02) –.06 (–.07)

.12 (.18) .16 (.24) .05 (.08)

.08 (.12)

–.01 (–.02) .15 (.23) .15 (.23) .10 (.15)

.04 (.06)

.09 (.14) .18* (.27)

.17 (.26) .06 (.09) .20* (.30)

.06 (.07) –.02 (–.02)

44.5 8.9 43.8 9.4

RC3

.15 (.23)

–.07 (–.12)

–.07 (–.12)

.03 (.05) .07 (.12)

.08 (.14)

.04 (.07)

.04 (.07) .05 (.09) –.04 (–.07)

–.02 (–.03)

.04 (.07) .03 (.05) .08 (.14) .03 (.05)

–.02 (–.03)

–.05 (–.09) .06 (.10)

–.06 (–.10) –.03 (–.05) –.02 (–.03)

–.04 (–.07) .12 (.18) .13 (.22) .25** (.37)

41.1 5.7 41.7 6.4

RC1

.02 (.03) .01 (.01)

46.6 6.7 46.4 7.0

RC6

.00 (.00)

.01 (.01) –.05 (–.07) –.01 (–.01) –.14 (–.21)

–.04 (–.06)

.09 (.13)

.02 (.03)

.11 (.17)

.04 (.06) .05 (.08) .14 (.21) –.06 (–.09)

.03 (.05)

.10 (.15)

.07 (.11)

.13 (.19) .07 (.11)

.02 (.03)

.17* (.25) .10 (.15) .04 (.06)

–.06 (–.09)

.04 (.06) .02 (.03) .00 (.00)

.03 (.05)

–.07 (–.11) .09 (.14) .09 (.14) –.01 (–.02)

–.02 (–.03)

–.06 (–.09) –.02 (–.03)

–.02 (–.03) .08 (.12) .13 (.19)

.12 (.18) .11 (.17)

39.0 6.6 37.8 5.6

RC7

–.02 (–.03)

–.02 (–.03) .07 (.10) .02 (.03)

–.10 (–.15)

.05 (.07) .03 (.04) .11 (.16) .06 (.09)

.05 (.07)

–.01 (–.01) .11 (.16)

–.03 (–.04) –.02 (–.03) .02 (.03)

Restructured Clinical

.07 (.10)

.02 (.03) .08 (.12) .10 (.15) –.03 (–.04)

–.05 (–.07)

.09 (.13)

.08 (.12)

.12 (.18) .10 (.15)

.18* (.26)

.01 (.01)

.07 (.10) .09 (.13) .03 (.04)

.01 (.01)

.02 (.03) .14 (.21) .13 (.19) .18* (.26)

.12 (.18)

–.03 (–.04) .08 (.12)

–.06 (–.09) .01 (.01) –.09 (–.13)

.04 (.06) .10 (.15)

44.5 6.7 44.2 7.4

RC8

.02 (.02)

–.01 (–.01) –.02 (–.02) –.08 (–.09) –.16 (–.18)

–.12 (–.13)

.01 (.01)

.07 (.08)

.05 (.06) –.03 (–.03)

.00 (.00)

–.04 (–.05)

–.01 (–.01) –.10 (–.11) –.05 (–.06)

.01 (.01)

–.04 (–.05) .03 (.03) .03 (.03) .04 (.05)

.01 (.01)

–.02 (–.02) .03 (.03)

–.07 (–.08) .04 (.05) .00 (.00)

.05 (.06) .00 (.00)

43.7 8.9 43.5 8.0

RC9

.12 (.22)

.14 (.26) .06 (.11) .07 (.13) .10 (.19)

.11 (.20)

.11 (.20)

.13 (.24)

.05 (.09) .16 (.29)

.16 (.29)

.11 (.20)

.11 (.20) .11 (.20) .05 (.09)

.01 (.02)

–.01 (–.02) .06 (.11) .11 (.20) .06 (.11)

.05 (.09)

.06 (.11) .17 (.31)

.13 (.24) .08 (.15) .17 (.31)

.08 (.15) .17 (.31)

41.7 5.3 42.1 5.6

MLS

.14 (.28)

–.11 (–.22) .02 (.04) .10 (.20) –.13 (–.26)

.10 (.20)

–.11 (–.22)

–.04 (–.08)

.02 (.04) .14 (.28)

.05 (.10)

.00 (.00)

.10 (.20) .04 (.08) –.01 (–.02)

–.09 (–.18)

.01 (.02) .02 (.04) .00 (.00) .10 (.20)

–.01 (–.02)

–.03 (–.06) .07 (.14)

–.11 (–.22) –.08 (–.16) .01 (.02)

–.07 (–.14) .06 (.12)

43.6 4.9 43.5 4.7

HPC

.00 (.00)

–.08 (–.12) –.12 (–.18) .01 (.02) –.08 (–.12)

.02 (.03)

–.11 (–.17)

–.01 (–.02)

.07 (.11) .06 (.09)

–.07 (–.11)

.09 (.14)

.02 (.03) .03 (.05) –.10 (–.15)

.02 (.03)

–.03 (–.05) .02 (.03) –.04 (–.06) .00 (.00)

–.01 (–.02)

–.06 (–.09) .01 (.02)

–.07 (–.11) –.09 (–.14) –.05 (–.08)

–.08 (–.12) .10 (.15)

44.7 6.6 45.8 7.1

NUC

Somatic–Cognitive

(continued)

.09 (.17)

.06 (.12) .04 (.08) .13 (.25) .09 (.17)

–.07 (–.14)

.16 (.30)

–.05 (–.10)

.09 (.17) .02 (.04)

.03 (.06)

–.03 (–.06)

.04 (.08) –.01 (–.02) –.10 (–.19)

.12 (.23)

.05 (.10) .15 (.28) .22* (.40) .06 (.12)

.11 (.21)

.10 (.19) .05 (.10)

–.03 (–.06) –.05 (–.10) –.01 (–.02)

.10 (.19) .14 (.27)

42.9 5.1 42.7 5.5

COG

Table 2. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form Higher Order, Restructured Clinical, and Somatic–Cognitive Specific Problems Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Male Police Officer Supervisor Ratings (N = 131).

418


EID

THD

Higher Order

.02 (.04) .01 (.02) .09 (.17) .01 (.02) .00 (.00)

.15 (.28) .13 (.24) .03 (.06)

–.04 (–.08)

.05 (.10) –.03 (–.05)

.18* (.24) .03 (.04) .07 (.09)

–.02 (–.03)

.09 (.12) .06 (.07)

.01 (.02) –.02 (–.04)

RCd

–.03 (–.04) –.01 (–.01) .05 (.07) –.10 (–.13) .07 (.09)

.02 (.03) .10 (.13)

BXD

.11 (.19)

.05 (.09)

–.03 (–.05)

.00 (.00)

.07 (.12)

–.09 (–.16)

–.12 (–.21) .00 (.00) –.03 (–.05) .02 (.03) .02 (.03)

–.01 (–.02) –.07 (–.12)

RC1

–.01 (–.01)

.01 (.01)

.20* (.30) –.01 (–.02)

–.08 (–.09)

.03 (.03)

.01 (.01)

.05 (.06)

–.08 (–.09) –.06 (–.07) .01 (.01) –.09 (–.10) .00 (.00)

–.09 (–.10) –.04 (–.04)

RC3

.17 (.26)

.14 (.21)

.09 (.14)

.02 (.03)

.21* (.31) .11 (.17) .12 (.18) .18* (.27) .07 (.11)

.07 (.11) .08 (.12)

RC2

.02 (.03)

.15 (.20)

.03 (.04)

.14 (.19)

.08 (.11)

.10 (.14)

.01 (.01) .03 (.04) .11 (.15) –.01 (–.01) .07 (.10)

.04 (.05) .14 (.19)

RC4

RC6

–.03 (–.05)

.08 (.12)

–.02 (–.03)

.04 (.06)

.03 (.04)

.11 (.16)

.01 (.01) –.02 (–.03) .11 (.16) –.07 (–.10) .02 (.03)

–.05 (–.07) .04 (.06)

Restructured Clinical

.18* (.27)

.12 (.18)

.01 (.02)

.04 (.06)

.10 (.15)

.15 (.22)

–.06 (–.09) –.05 (–.08) .04 (.06) .04 (.06) –.02 (–.03)

.04 (.06) .08 (.12)

RC7

.06 (.09)

.07 (.10)

.13 (.19)

.11 (.16)

.05 (.07)

.08 (.12)

–.04 (–.06) .03 (.04) .08 (.12) –.01 (–.01) .02 (.03)

.04 (.06) .06 (.09)

RC8

.07 (.08)

.02 (.02)

–.05 (–.06)

.05 (.06)

–.01 (–.01)

.21* (.24)

–.07 (–.08) –.06 (–.07) .06 (.07) –.05 (–.06) .04 (.05)

–.04 (–.05) .03 (.03)

RC9

.03 (.06)

.22* (.39)

.07 (.13)

.12 (.22)

.02 (.04)

.01 (.02)

.15 (.28) .04 (.08) .08 (.15) .16 (.29) –.03 (–.06)

.12 (.22) .13 (.24)

MLS

.12 (.24)

.10 (.20)

–.06 (–.12)

–.06 (–.12)

.04 (.08)

–.13 (–.26)

–.05 (–.10) –.06 (–.12) –.05 (–.10) .08 (.16) –.06 (–.12)

–.05 (–.10) –.11 (–.22)

HPC

.14 (.21)

–.01 (–.02)

–.09 (–.14)

–.10 (–.15)

.07 (.11)

–.04 (–.06)

–.10 (–.15) .01 (.02) –.05 (–.08) .00 (.00) –.03 (–.05)

–.04 (–.06) –.07 (–.11)

NUC

Somatic–Cognitive

–.04 (–.08)

.06 (.12)

–.09 (–.17)

.11 (.21)

.11 (.21)

.14 (.27)

–.08 (–.16) .05 (.10) .16 (.30) –.01 (–.02) .09 (.17)

.03 (.06) .05 (.10)

COG

Note. Significance testing only conducted on zero-order correlations. Disattenuated correlations are in parentheses. Statistically significant findings are in boldface. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for r = .15 range from −.02 to .31; r = .20 range from .03 to .36; r = .25 range from .08 to .40; r = .30 range from .14 to .45; r = .35 range from .19 to .49; r = .40 range from .25 to .53. EID = Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction; THD = Thought Dysfunction; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction; RCd = Demoralization; RC1 = Somatic Complaints; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; RC3 = Cynicism; RC4 = Antisocial Behavior; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; RC8 = Aberrant Experiences; RC9 = Hypomanic Activation; MLS = Malaise; HPC = Head Pain Complaints; NUC = Neurological Complaints; COG = Cognitive Complaints; Gastrointestinal Complaints not presented because it had very little variance. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Integrity Problems Trust in Officer .04 (.06) .05 (.07) Integrity/Ethics .05 (.08) .06 (.09) Conscientiousness and Commitment Problems Ambition .08 (.12) –.02 (–.03) Attention-to-Detail .07 (.11) .02 (.03) Finishing Assignments .13 (.20) .06 (.09) Initiative .09 (.14) .03 (.04) Documentation of .05 (.08) .00 (.00) Activities Substance Use Problems Alcohol/Drugs .10 (.15) .05 (.07) Impulse Control Problems Act Without .15 (.23) –.02 (–.03) Thinking Potential for .09 (.14) .00 (.00) Inappropriate Aggression History of .04 (.06) .13 (.19) Inappropriate Aggression Global Overall Performance .19* (.29) .09 (.13) Rating Adverse Departure .05 (.07) .04 (.06)

Table 2. (continued)

419


HLP

M 42.7 SD 4.8 Comparison group M 41.9 Comparison group SD 3.9 Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Anger –.01 (–.02) Utilizing Training Under Stress .05 (.10) Excessive Force –.12 (–.25) Emotional Problems –.07 (–.15) Amount of Stress –.10 (–.21) Routine Task Performance Problems Navigation –.05 (–.10) Drawing Crime/Accident Scenes –.08 (–.17) Following Driving Directions –.11 (–.23) Radio Operation –.06 (–.12) Writing/Paperwork –.08 (–.17) Directing Traffic –.11 (–.23) Marksmanship .03 (.06) Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Disregarding Instructions –.01 (–.02) Decision Making –.04 (–.08) Accidental Injury –.12 (–.25) Making Charges Later Dismissed –.11 (–.23) Overlooking Violations –.01 (–.02) Predicting Situational Outcomes –.16 (–.32) Poor Common Sense –.14 (–.28) Problem Solving/Judgment –.01 (–.02) Suspicious Personality Traits –.07 (–.15) Feedback Acceptance Problems Feedback Acceptance .02 (.04) Assertiveness Problems Assertiveness .03 (.06) Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Social Skills–Officers –.16 (–.32) Social Skills– Public .08 (.17) Oral Communication .05 (.10) Complains About Instructions .02 (.04) Social Skills–Overall .10 (.21)

41.2 5.9 40.9 5.9 .08 (.14) –.02 (–.03) .00 (.00) –.01 (–.02) .01 (.02) .02 (.03) –.03 (–.05) .05 (.08) .01 (.02) .07 (.12) .08 (.14) –.02 (–.03) –.03 (–.05) .09 (.15) –.01 (–.02) –.01 (–.02) –.09 (–.15) .00 (.00) .02 (.03) .02 (.03) –.05 (–.08) .06 (.10) .03 (.05) .02 (.03) .03 (.05) .11 (.18) –.08 (–.14) .14 (.23)

.11 (.20) .16 (.29) –.08 (–.15) .06 (.11) .18* (.33) .03 (.06) .01 (.02) .03 (.06) –.02 (–.04) .10 (.19) .05 (.09) –.06 (–.11) .07 (.13) .01 (.02) .04 (.08) .00 (.00) .09 (.17) .13 (.24) .10 (.19) .11 (.20) .01 (.02) .12 (.22) .02 (.04) .04 (.08) .00 (.00) .10 (.19) –.04 (–.08) .06 (.11)

NFC

43.7 5.3 43.0 3.8

SFD

.12 (.19) .19* (.29) .21* (.32) .06 (.10) .21* (.32)

–.06 (–.13) –.05 (–.11) –.03 (–.07) –.12 (–.26) .00 (.00)

–.05 (–.11)

–.02 (–.05)

.22* (.34) .12 (.19)

–.05 (–.11) –.03 (–.07) –.03 (–.07) –.02 (–.05) –.10 (–.22) .01 (.02) .12 (.26) .00 (.00) .02 (.05)

.16 (.25) .12 (.19) .13 (.20) .00 (.00) .06 (.10) .16 (.25) .16 (.25) .15 (.23) .13 (.20)

–.15 (–.33) –.05 (–.11) –.03 (–.07) –.13 (–.28) .05 (.11) .02 (.05) .04 (.09)

–.09 (–.20) –.02 (–.05) –.03 (–.07) –.02 (–.05) –.01 (–.02)

.17* (.26) .20* (.31) .04 (.06) .09 (.14) .14 (.22) .12 (.19) .19* (.29) .15 (.23) .15 (.23) .19* (.29) .24** (.37) .16 (.25)

45.3 4.4 44.8 3.7

AXY

41.3 6.3 40.7 6.1

STW

Internalizing

.16 (.31) .03 (.06) .04 (.08) –.02 (–.04) .09 (.18)

–.04 (–.08)

.20* (.38)

.07 (.14) .05 (.10) .06 (.12) –.01 (–.02) –.03 (–.06) .05 (.10) .04 (.08) –.01 (–.02) .07 (.14)

.06 (.12) .03 (.06) .06 (.12) .01 (.02) –.01 (–.02) .08 (.16) .01 (.02)

.16 (.31) .03 (.06) .05 (.10) .09 (.18) .12 (.23)

41.1 5.0 40.4 4.5

ANP

.03 (.07) .08 (.19) .01 (.02) .05 (.12) –.02 (–.05)

–.13 (–.30)

.15 (.34)

.10 (.24) –.12 (–.28) .01 (.02) –.02 (–.05) –.03 (–.07) –.07 (–.17) –.06 (–.14) –.01 (–.02) .08 (.19)

–.06 (–.14) –.08 (–.19) –.07 (–.17) –.05 (–.12) .12 (.28) .04 (.10) –.06 (–.14)

.18* (.41) .01 (.02) .00 (.00) .10 (.24) .10 (.24)

44.0 4.1 44.0 4.1

BRF

.06 (.09) .03 (.05) .16 (.24) –.08 (–.12) .09 (.14)

.05 (.08)

.03 (.05)

–.07 (–.11) .04 (.06) .16 (.24) .06 (.09) .01 (.02) .10 (.15) .08 (.12) .07 (.11) –.15 (–.22)

–.08 (–.12) .02 (.03) .02 (.03) .00 (.00) .14 (.21) .01 (.02) .09 (.14)

.06 (.09) .05 (.08) .05 (.08) –.06 (–.09) .01 (.02)

44.0 6.6 42.8 6.3

MSF

.05 (.06) .09 (.11) –.01 (–.01) –.02 (–.02) .11 (.13)

–.13 (–.15)

.07 (.08)

.05 (.06) –.02 (–.02) .04 (.05) .01 (.01) .06 (.07) –.01 (–.01) –.02 (–.02) .14 (.17) .24** (.28)

.06 (.07) .13 (.15) .15 (.18) –.14 (–.17) .13 (.15) .10 (.12) .14 (.17)

.15 (.18) .13 (.15) –.03 (–.04) .08 (.09) .02 (.02)

48.1 8.4 48.8 9.1

JCP

–.08 (–.14) .03 (.05) –.05 (–.09) .00 (.00) .03 (.05)

–.07 (–.12)

.10 (.17)

.12 (.21) –.08 (–.14) .00 (.00) –.13 (–.22) .06 (.10) .06 (.10) .11 (.19) .05 (.09) .03 (.05)

.14 (.24) .10 (.17) .10 (.17) .03 (.05) .11 (.19) .10 (.17) –.11 (–.19)

.00 (.00) .12 (.21) .03 (.05) .09 (.15) –.02 (–.03)

44.2 5.8 44.7 5.9

SUB

(continued)

–.02 (–.02) .02 (.02) .03 (.04) –.14 (–.17) .12 (.14)

–.06 (–.07)

–.18* (–.24) –.06 (–.08) –.10 (–.13) –.10 (–.13) –.09 (–.12) –.09 (–.12)

–.02 (–.02)

–.01 (–.01) .00 (.00) –.08 (–.10) .07 (.08) .02 (.02) .10 (.12) .15 (.18) .05 (.06) .07 (.08)

.07 (.08) .07 (.08) –.01 (–.01) .07 (.08) .12 (.14) .02 (.02) .09 (.11)

.08 (.10) .09 (.11) –.12 (–.14) .07 (.08) –.02 (–.02)

43.7 8.3 43.8 9.1

ACT

.06 (.08)

–.03 (–.04) –.11 (–.14) –.10 (–.13) –.23** (–.30) –.14 (–.18) –.18* (–.24) –.14 (–.18) –.14 (–.18) –.06 (–.08)

–.08 (–.11) –.06 (–.08) –.08 (–.11) –.13 (–.17) –.10 (–.13) .03 (.04) –.12 (–.16)

.07 (.09) –.07 (–.09) –.04 (–.05) .01 (.01) .10 (.13)

43.0 7.6 42.0 6.5

AGG

Externalizing

Table 3. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form Internalizing and Externalizing Specific Problem Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Male Police Officer Supervisor Ratings (N = 131).

420


HLP .03 (.05) –.02 (–.03) –.08 (–.14) –.01 (–.02) .01 (.02) .09 (.15) .00 (.00) .01 (.02) .05 (.08) .02 (.03) –.07 (–.12) .10 (.17) .14 (.24)

.03 (.06) –.03 (–.06) .07 (.13) .00 (.00) –.08 (–.15) .11 (.20) .10 (.19) .03 (.06) –.06 (–.11) .02 (.04) .05 (.09)

NFC

.04 (.08) –.01 (–.02)

SFD

.15 (.23) .09 (.15)

.11 (.17) .15 (.23) –.08 (–.13)

.03 (.05)

.02 (.03) .05 (.08) .26** (.39) .06 (.10) .12 (.19)

.17 (.26) .18* (.28)

STW

–.03 (–.07) –.01 (–.02)

–.03 (–.07) –.05 (–.11) –.05 (–.11)

.02 (.05)

–.07 (–.16) –.08 (–.18) .03 (.07) –.11 (–.24) –.06 (–.13)

–.07 (–.16) –.06 (–.13)

AXY

Internalizing

.10 (.20) .07 (.14)

.02 (.04) .17 (.33) .00 (.00)

.11 (.22)

–.05 (–.10) –.01 (–.02) .15 (.29) .03 (.06) .01 (.02)

.09 (.18) .18* (.34)

ANP

–.07 (–.17) .06 (.13)

.13 (.30) .07 (.17) –.06 (–.14)

.02 (.05)

–.08 (–.19) –.02 (–.05) –.09 (–.21) –.04 (–.10) .05 (.12)

.12 (.28) .11 (.26)

BRF

.06 (.09) .02 (.04)

.13 (.19) .01 (.02) .22* (.32)

.09 (.14)

–.01 (–.02) .04 (.06) .06 (.09) .09 (.14) .12 (.18)

.00 (.00) .12 (.18)

MSF

.16 (.19) .04 (.05)

.12 (.14) .19* (.22) –.02 (–.02)

–.01 (–.01)

–.03 (–.04) .05 (.06) .03 (.04) –.08 (–.09) –.01 (–.01)

.08 (.09) .21* (.25)

JCP

.07 (.12) –.05 (–.09)

.06 (.10) .02 (.03) –.03 (–.05)

.11 (.19)

.05 (.09) –.04 (–.07) .16 (.27) .14 (.24) .08 (.14)

.06 (.10) .04 (.07)

SUB

–.11 (–.14) –.01 (–.01)

–.10 (–.13) .05 (.07) –.12 (–.16)

.04 (.05)

–.15 (–.20) –.16 (–.21) .03 (.04) –.17* (–.22) –.08 (–.11)

–.08 (–.11) –.06 (–.08)

AGG

Externalizing

.12 (.14) .20* (.23)

–.02 (–.02) .07 (.08) .03 (.04)

.12 (.14)

–.03 (–.04) .07 (.08) .03 (.04) .07 (.08) .06 (.07)

.04 (.05) .05 (.06)

ACT

Note. Significance testing only conducted on zero-order correlations. Disattenuated correlations are in parentheses. Statistically significant findings are in boldface. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for r = .15 range from −.02 to .31; r = .20 range from .03 to .36; r = .25 range from .08 to .40; r = .30 range from .14 to .45; r = .35 range from .19 to .49; r = .40 range from .25 to .53. HLP = Helplessness/Hopelessness; SFD = Self-Doubt; NFC = Inefficacy; STW = Stress/Worry; ANX = Anxiety; ANP = Anger Proneness; BRF = Behavior-Restricting Fears; MSF = Multiple Specific Fears; JCP = Juvenile Conduct Problems; SUB = Substance Abuse; AGG = Aggression; ACT = Activation. Suicidal/Death Ideation not presented because it had very little variance. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Integrity Problems Trust in Officer –.08 (–.17) Integrity/Ethics –.14 (–.28) Conscientiousness and Commitment Problems Ambition –.08 (–.17) Attention-to-Detail .02 (.04) Finishing Assignments –.19* (–.38) Initiative –.01 (–.02) Documentation of Activities .00 (.00) Substance Use Problems Alcohol/Drugs –.17 (–.34) Impulse Control Problems Act Without Thinking –.02 (–.04) Potential for Inappropriate Aggression –.04 (–.08) History of Inappropriate Aggression –.08 (–.17) Global Overall Performance Rating –.01 (–.02) Adverse Departure .04 (.08)


421


FML

M 41.3 SD 6.2 Comparison group M 41.4 Comparison group SD 5.8 Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Anger .05 (.08) Utilizing Training Under Stress .15 (.24) Excessive Force –.09 (–.14) Emotional Problems .00 (.00) Amount of Stress –.04 (–.06) Routine Task Performance Problems Navigation –.03 (–.05) Drawing Crime/Accident Scenes –.03 (–.05) Following Driving Directions .12 (.19) Radio Operation .00 (.00) Writing/Paperwork .11 (.18) Directing Traffic .12 (.19) Marksmanship .13 (.21) Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Disregarding Instructions .01 (.02) Decision Making –.05 (–.08) Accidental Injury .01 (.02) Making Charges later Dismissed .08 (.13) Overlooking Violations –.08 (–.13) Predicting Situational Outcomes .09 (.14) Poor Common Sense .09 (.14) Problem Solving/Judgment –.01 (–.02) Suspicious Personality Traits .02 (.03) Feedback Acceptance Problems Feedback Acceptance .10 (.16) Assertiveness Problems Assertiveness –.12 (–.19) Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Social Skills–Officers .01 (.02) Social Skills–Public –.01 (–.02) Oral Communication .02 (.03) Complains About Instructions –.09 (–.14) Social Skills–Overall .02 (.03)

.09 (.12) .10 (.13)

.16 (.21) .22* (.28) .12 (.16) .07 (.09) .16 (.21) .12 (.16) .15 (.20) .20* (.26) .05 (.07) .15 (.20) .24** (.31) .10 (.13) .28** (.36) .27** (.35) .17* (.22) .22* (.28)

.00 (.00) .00 (.00) .06 (.10) .12 (.20) .06 (.10) .04 (.07) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) –.14 (–.24) –.12 (–.20) .08 (.14) –.15 (–.25) –.05 (–.09) .03 (.05) .00 (.00) –.06 (–.10)

–.02 (–.03) .07 (.09) .16 (.21) –.05 (–.07) .15 (.20)

.02 (.03) .07 (.09) –.05 (–.07) –.05 (–.07) –.02 (–.03) .02 (.03) .06 (.08) .09 (.12) .02 (.03)

–.01 (–.01) .02 (.03) .02 (.03) .00 (.00) .06 (.08) .09 (.12) .03 (.04)

.13 (.17) .17 (.22) .08 (.10) .21* (.27) .21* (.27) .29** (.37) .12 (.16)

.03 (.05) .00 (.00) –.07 (–.12) –.05 (–.09) .00 (.00) –.03 (–.05) –.03 (–.05)

.10 (.13) .13 (.17) –.01 (–.01) .07 (.09) .09 (.12)

43.0 7.5 40.9 6.0

SHY

.11 (.14) .22* (.28) .08 (.10) .08 (.10) .11 (.14)

48.7 7.6 46.9 7.5

SAV

.07 (.12) .10 (.17) .00 (.00) –.07 (–.12) .02 (.03)

44.9 5.8 46.0 6.5

IPP

Interpersonal

–.09 (–.20) .19* (.40) .18* (.38) –.03 (–.07) .14 (.30)

.11 (.24)

.01 (.02)

.09 (.20) .10 (.22) –.04 (–.09) –.09 (–.20) .04 (.09) .04 (.09) .05 (.11) .05 (.11) .02 (.04)

.04 (.09) .13 (.28) .11 (.24) .11 (.24) .17 (.36) .23** (.47) .14 (.30)

.06 (.13) .18* (.38) –.01 (–.02) –.02 (–.04) –.11 (–.24)

45.3 4.5 45.5 4.6

DSF

–.01 (–.01) –.01 (–.01) –.09 (–.12) –.12 (–.16) –.02 (–.03)

–.19* (–.26)

.03 (.04)

–.05 (–.07) –.03 (–.04) –.10 (–.14) –.12 (–.16) –.09 (–.12) –.14 (–.19) –.09 (–.12) –.08 (–.11) .10 (.14)

–.06 (–.08) .00 (.00) .04 (.05) .05 (.07) –.03 (–.04) .01 (.01) .02 (.03)

–.02 (–.03) –.12 (–.16) –.04 (–.05) .05 (.07) –.05 (–.07)

52.1 7.3 51.3 6.9

AGGR-r

–.01 (–.01) .08 (.12) .13 (.19) –.12 (–.17) .07 (.10)

.01 (.01)

.07 (.10)

–.08 (–.12) .08 (.12) .07 (.10) .06 (.09) .01 (.01) .22* (.31) .14 (.20) .11 (.16) .04 (.06)

–.02 (–.03) .08 (.12) .08 (.12) .03 (.04) .09 (.13) .08 (.12) .18* (.26)

.04 (.06) .08 (.12) .00 (.00) .05 (.07) –.09 (–.13)

44.0 6.9 43.8 7.2

PSYC-r

.01 (.01) .06 (.08) –.13 (–.18) –.13 (–.18) .06 (.08)

–.20* (–.27)

.03 (.04)

–.03 (–.04) –.10 (–.14) –.08 (–.11) –.05 (–.07) .03 (.04) .00 (.00) –.02 (–.03) .01 (.01) .08 (.11)

.02 (.03) .06 (.08) .03 (.04) –.11 (–.15) .03 (.04) .00 (.00) –.02 (–.03)

.08 (.11) .02 (.03) –.12 (–.17) .11 (.15) .05 (.07)

50.5 7.2 51.6 7.4

DISC-r

.17 (.26) .12 (.18) .03 (.05) .06 (.09) .11 (.17)

38.9 6.4 38.6 6.3

NEGE-r

.13 (.20) .13 (.20) .16 (.24) .00 (.00) .16 (.24)

(continued)

.11 (.14) .23** (.30) .26** (.33) .16 (.21) .11 (.14)

.22* (.28)

.12 (.16)

.21* (.32) .03 (.05)

.11 (.14) .19* (.25) .15 (.20) .07 (.09) .11 (.14) .07 (.09) .09 (.12) .18* (.23) .01 (.01)

.10 (.13) .13 (.17) .08 (.10) .11 (.14) .14 (.18) .21* (.27) .04 (.05)

.02 (.03) .15 (.20) .09 (.12) .00 (.00) .11 (.14)

48.5 7.6 47.3 7.5

INTR-r

.11 (.17) .09 (.14) .09 (.14) –.01 (–.02) .00 (.00) .10 (.15) .14 (.21) .10 (.15) .12 (.18)

.05 (.08) .11 (.17) .08 (.12) .04 (.06) .14 (.21) .20* (.30) .06 (.09)

Personality-Psychopathology-5

Table 4. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form Interpersonal Functioning Specific Problem Scales, Interest Scales, and PersonalityPsychopathology-5 Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Male Police Officer Supervisor Ratings (N = 131).

422


FML

.06 (.08) –.04 (–.05) –.03 (–.04) .06 (.08) –.02 (–.03) .13 (.17)

.25** (.32) .24** (.31) .19* (.25) .16 (.21) .26** (.33) –.22* (–.28) .13 (.17) .11 (.14) –.05 (–.07) .12 (.16) .01 (.01)

.03 (.05) .04 (.07) –.07 (–.12) .07 (.12) –.02 (–.03) –.06 (–.10) –.04 (–.07) –.04 (–.07) .00 (.00) .04 (.07) –.16 (–.27)

.10 (.13) .08 (.10)

.03 (.04) –.03 (–.04) .02 (.03)

–.02 (–.03) –.02 (–.03)

SHY

.06 (.08) .04 (.05)

SAV

–.03 (–.05) –.11 (–.19)

IPP

Interpersonal

.02 (.04) –.01 (–.02)

.08 (.18) –.02 (–.04) –.04 (–.09)

–.03 (–.07)

.19* (.40) .06 (.13) –.04 (–.09) .03 (.07) .07 (.15)

–.01 (–.02) –.07 (–.15)

DSF

–.11 (–.15) .10 (.13)

.00 (.00) .04 (.05) –.03 (–.04)

.07 (.10)

–.10 (–.14) –.06 (–.08) .00 (.00) –.14 (–.19) .00 (.00)

–.06 (–.08) .00 (.00)

AGGR-r

.07 (.10) .08 (.11)

.04 (.06) .02 (.03) .14 (.20)

.05 (.07)

.03 (.04) .06 (.09) .01 (.01) .07 (.10) .03 (.04)

.03 (.04) .02 (.03)

PSYC-r

.09 (.13) .05 (.07)

.04 (.06) .02 (.03) –.04 (–.06)

.17 (.23)

–.02 (–.03) –.01 (–.01) –.02 (–.03) –.11 (–.15) .04 (.06)

.01 (.01) .07 (.10)

DISC-r

NEGE-r

.17 (.26) .17 (.25)

.11 (.17) .16 (.24) –.01 (–.02)

.11 (.17)

–.04 (–.06) –.01 (–.02) .18* (.27) .02 (.03) .06 (.09)

.13 (.20) .19* (.29)

Personality-Psychopathology-5

.06 (.08) –.04 (–.05)

.08 (.10) .10 (.13) .04 (.05)

–.19* (–.25)

.23** (.30) .17 (.22) .12 (.16) .12 (.16) .13 (.17)

.05 (.07) .02 (.03)

INTR-r

Note. Significance testing only conducted on zero-order correlations. Disattenuated correlations are in parentheses. Statistically significant findings are in boldface. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for r = .15 range from −.02 to .31; r = .20 range from .03 to .36; r = .25 range from .08 to .40; r = .30 range from .14 to .45; r = .35 range from .19 to .49; r = .40 range from .25 to .53. FML = Family Problems; IPP = Interpersonal Passivity; SAV = Social Avoidance; SHY = Shyness; DSF = Disaffiliativeness; AGGR-r = Aggressiveness–Revised, PSYC-r = Psychoticism–Revised, DISC-r = Disconstraint–Revised, NEGE-r = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism–Revised, INTR-r = Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality–Revised. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Integrity Problems Trust in Officer .03 (.05) Integrity/Ethics .09 (.14) Conscientiousness and Commitment Problems Ambition –.10 (–.16) Attention-to-Detail –.01 (–.02) Finishing Assignments .24** (.37) Initiative –.20* (–.31) Documentation of Activities .11 (.18) Substance Use Problems Alcohol/Drugs .00 (.00) Impulse Control Problems Act Without Thinking .05 (.08) Potential for Inappropriate Aggression .15 (.24) History of Inappropriate Aggression –.04 (–.06) Global Overall Performance Rating –.01 (–.02) Adverse Departure .00 (.01)


423

Tarescavage et al. Table 5. Summary Table of Interpreted Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Correlations by Performance Domain. Criteria

MMPI-2-RF correlates

Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Anger Utilizing Training Under Stress Amount of Stress Routine Task Performance Problems Drawing Crime/Accident Scenes Radio Operation Writing/Paperwork Directing Traffic Marksmanship Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Decision Making Making Charges Later Dismissed Overlooking Violations Predicting Situational Outcomes Poor Common Sense Problem Solving/Judgment Suspicious Personality Traits Feedback Acceptance Problems Feedback Acceptance Assertiveness Problems Assertiveness Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Social Skills–Officers Social Skills–Public Oral Communication Complains About Instructions Social Skills–Overall Integrity Problems Integrity/Ethics Conscientiousness and Commitment Problems Ambition Attention-to-Detail Finishing Assignments Initiative Documentation of Activities Substance Use Problems Alcohol/Drugs Impulse Control Problems Act Without Thinking Potential for Inappropriate Aggression History of Inappropriate Aggression Global Overall Performance Rating Adverse Departure

STW and BRF EID, RCd, RC2, STW, SAV, and DSF EID, RCd, RC2, and SFD RC2 and STW SAV EID, STW, and SAV EID, COG, STW, SAV, DSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r THD, RC8, and PYSC-r SAV and INTR-r AGG (−) RC2 THD, RC6, RC8, AGG (−), and PSYC-r EID EID, RC2, SAV, and INTR-r JCP STW, ANP, and NEGE-r RC2, AGG (−), SAV, AGGR-r (−), DISC-r (−), and INTR-r RC2 RC2, STW, SAV, DSF, and INTR-r EID, RC2, STW, SAV, DSF, and INTR-r RC3 (−), SAV, EID, STW, and SAV STW, ANP, JCP, and NEGE-r RC2, SAV, DSF, and INTR-r SAV SUI, HLP (−), STW, FML, SAV, and NEGE-r RC2, AGG (−), and FML (−) SAV BXD, RC9, SAV (−), and INTR-r (−) SUI JCP MSF EID, RC2, and MLS RC7 and ACT

Note. Scales demonstrating largest correlational magnitude with each criterion are in boldface. (−) negatively associated with problems. No interpretable correlations were observed for the following criteria: excessive force, emotional problems, navigation, following driving directions, disregarding instructions, accidental injury, and trust in officer. EID = Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction; THD = Thought Dysfunction; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction; RCd = Demoralization; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; RC3 = Cynicism; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; RC8 = Aberrant Experiences; RC9 = (Hypomanic Activation; MLS = Malaise; GIC = Gastrointestinal Complaints; COG = Cognitive Complaints; SUI = Suicidal/Death Ideation; HLP = Helplessness/Hopelessness; SFD = Self-Doubt; STW = Stress/Worry; ANP = Anger Proneness; BRF = Behavior-Restricting Fears; MSF = Multiple Specific Fears; JCP = Juvenile Conduct Problems; AGG = Aggression; FML = Family Problems; SAV = Social Avoidance; DSF = Disaffiliativeness; AGGR-r = Aggressiveness–Revised; PSYC-r = Psychoticism–Revised; DISC-r = Disconstraint–Revised;, NEGE-r = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism–Revised; INTR-r = Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality–Revised.


424

Assessment 22(4)

correlate study in an outpatient mental health setting (Graham, Ben-Porath, & McNulty, 1999). This cutoff was deemed an appropriate, conservative indicator of practically meaningful findings in the current investigation because our sample produced range restricted scores on the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales, thus artifactually attenuating the resulting correlations (cf. Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage et al., 2015). Moreover, as in the police officer and outpatient studies just mentioned, our criteria were not based on self-report, eliminating the possible contribution of shared method variance to the resulting correlations. Finally, in both studies just mentioned correlations of this magnitude yield practically meaningful findings. For example, Sellbom et al. (2007) reported substantially increased risk for sustained internal affairs complaints (relative risk ratio = 4.34, p < .05) associated with higher scores on RC4, which demonstrated a zero-order correlation of .17 with this criterion. Although we calculated zero-order correlations between all MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and the performance criteria, because this study was conducted in the context of discovery (Reichenbach, 1938) we did not adjust alpha levels to correct for potential family-wise error rates. Ellis (2010) describes alpha-adjustment procedures as “an alarming trend” that reduces statistical power and complicates synthesis of the research literature (p. 79). In the current investigation field-research data were used, providing a sample size that was limited to 131 officers, which yields a power value of .41 to detect correlational magnitudes of .15 using an alpha of .05 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Adjusting the alpha to .01 would yield a power value of .19, and further lowering the alpha to .001 would yield a power value of .06. Such corrections would have substantially limited the practically meaningful information potentially gained from this study. The importance of replicating our findings is emphasized in the “Discussions” section of this article. Emotional Dysfunction. The scales in the Emotional Dysfunction domain include Higher Order Scale EID, Restructured Clinical scales Demoralization (RCd), Low Positive Emotions (RC2), and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7), Specific Problems scales Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Self-Doubt (SFD), Inefficacy (NFC), Stress/Worry (STW), Anxiety (AXY), Anger Proneness (ANP), Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF), and Multiple Specific Fears (MSF), and Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales Negative Emotionality/ Neuroticism–Revised (NEGE-r) and Low Positive Emotionality/Introversion–Revised (INTR-r). Scales from this domain demonstrated the most robust correlations with supervisor ratings. Several were associated with emotional control and stress problems, including anger (STW and BRF), utilizing training under stress (EID, RCd, RC2, and

STW), and amount of stress (EID, RCd, RC2, and SFD). These scales were also associated with routine task performance problems, such as drawing crime or accident scenes (RC2 and STW), paperwork completion problems (EID and STW), and difficulties directing traffic (EID, STW, NEGE-r, and INTR-r). The emotional dysfunction scales were associated with decision-making and judgment problems, including difficulties in the domains of decision making (INTR-r), overlooking violations (RC2), poor common sense (EID), and problem solving/judgment (EID, RC2, and INTR-r). Scale scores for STW, ANP, and NEGEr were associated with feedback acceptance problems. Scales from this domain were correlated with ratings from the assertiveness problems domain, including assertiveness (RC2 and INTR-r), social skills with other officers (RC2), social skills with the public (RC2, STW, and INTR-r), oral communication (EID, RC2, STW, and INTR-r), and overall social skills (EID and STW). Scores on the STW, ANP, and NEGE-r scales were associated with integrity and ethics problems. Scales from this domain were correlated with conscientiousness and commitment problems, including lack of ambition (RC2 and INTR-r), not finishing assignments (SUI, HLP [negative association], STW, and NEGE-r), and lack of initiative (RC2). The PSY-5 Scale INTR-r was negatively associated with substance use problems. In the impulse control problems area, SUI was associated with acting without thinking and MSF was correlated with a history of inappropriate aggression. Finally, EID and RC2 scores were associated with the global rating of poor officer performance, and RC7 was associated with adverse departure. Thought Dysfunction. The scales in the Thought Dysfunction domain include Higher Order Scale Thought Dysfunction (THD), Restructured Clinical scales Ideas of Persecution (RC6) and Aberrant Experiences (RC8), and PersonalityPsychopathology-5 scale Psychoticism–Revised (PSYC-r). Scales from this domain were associated with marksmanship problems (THD, RC8, and PSYC-r) and difficulty predicting situational outcomes (THD, RC6, RC8, and PSYC-r). Behavioral Dysfunction. The scales in the Behavioral Dysfunction domain include Higher Order Scale Behavioral/ Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD), Restructured Clinical scales Antisocial Behavior (RC4) and Hypomanic Activation (RC9), and the Externalizing Specific Problems scales Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Substance Abuse (SUB), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT). This domain also includes Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales Aggressiveness–Revised (AGGR-r) and Disconstraint– Revised (DISC-r). Scales from this domain were positively associated with suspicious personality traits (JCP), integrity problems (JCP), potential for inappropriate aggression


425

Tarescavage et al. (JCP), and alcohol or drug use (BXD and RC9). Aggression (AGG) was negatively associated with several criteria, including making charges that were later dismissed, predicting situational outcomes, assertiveness problems, and poor initiative. PSY-5 Scales AGGR-r and DISC-r were also negatively associated with assertiveness, meaning that lower scores on these scales were associated with assertiveness difficulties. Finally, ACT was associated with adverse departure. Somatic/Cognitive Complaints. The scales in the Somatic/ Cognitive Complaints domain include Restructured Clinical Scale Somatic Complaints (RC1) and the Somatic/Cognitive Specific Problems Scales, which are composed of Malaise (MLS), Gastrointestinal Complaints (GIC), Head Pain Complaints (HPC), Neurological Complaints (NUC), and Cognitive Complaints (COG). Owing to substantially restricted variance, we did not calculate correlations for GIC. Of the remaining somatic/cognitive scales, COG was associated with problems directing traffic and MLS was correlated with a poor overall rating. Interpersonal Functioning. The scales in the Interpersonal Functioning domain include Restructured Clinical scale Cynicism (RC3) and the Interpersonal Specific Problems scales, which are composed of Family Problems (FML), Interpersonal Passivity (IPP), SAV, Shyness (SHY), and Disaffiliativeness (DSF). In this domain, SAV demonstrated the most robust associations with supervisor rating criteria. This scale was associated with poor ratings in the following areas: utilizing training under stress, radio operation, writing, directing traffic, decision making, problem solving, assertiveness, social skills, oral communication, complaining about instructions, ambition, attention to detail, finishing assignments, documentation of activities, and alcohol/ drug use problems. Overall, disattenuated correlations demonstrated medium effect sizes as described by Cohen (1992) for approximately half of the findings just described, with all reaching a magnitude of at least r > |.20|.

Discussion The purpose of the current study was to investigate the use of the MMPI-2-RF in preemployment psychological evaluations of police officers. To this end, we calculated zeroorder correlations between the substantive scales of the test and posthire supervisor ratings that were mapped onto the California POST Psychological Screening Dimensions (2005), in order to link the criteria with contemporary jobrelated screening standards. Consistent with past research by Tarescavage et al. (2015), we found that MMPI-2-RF scales from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains were robustly associated with posthire

outcomes. We found that the current sample produced range-restricted scores that were similar to the police candidate comparison group, and after implementing a correction for disattenuation, the magnitude of correlations between prehire MMPI-2-RF scores and posthire supervisor ratings increased meaningfully. Several aspects of these findings warrant further discussion. The current sample scored meaningfully lower than the normative sample on most scales and produced a reduced range of scores, as the median standard deviation across the test’s substantive scales was approximately two thirds of the normative sample standard deviation of 10T for all scales. However, the scores from this sample were comparable to those of the police candidate comparison group. In addition to preselection and selection factors described earlier, the reduced range of scores relative to the general population may also result from underreporting. Indeed, in the current study, the sample produced L-r and K-r scores that were approximately one standard deviation above the population mean, which most likely reflects a combination of having more positive adjustment and being more defensive (i.e., less forthcoming about problems) than the general population (Carpenter & Raza, 1987; Hiatt & Hargrave, 1988). After applying a correction for range restriction, we found several meaningful corrected correlations between problem behaviors and MMPI-2-RF scale scores from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains, with nearly half reaching a correlational magnitude associated with a medium effect size (Cohen, 1992). In the emotional dysfunction domain, Higher Order Scale EID and Low Positive Emotions (RC2) showed some of the strongest associations with criteria, including those from the following POST domains: emotional control and stress tolerance problems, routine task performance problems, decision-making and judgment problems, assertiveness problems, and conscientiousness problems. At clinically elevated levels (i.e., T scores > 65T) the scales just mentioned assess internalizing psychopathology broadly defined (EID) and anhedonia (RC2). However, the current sample produced mean scores on these scales that were approximately one standard deviation below the general population mean (i.e., approximately 40T) and only one officer produced a clinically elevated score on either of these scales. Given similar associations with the POST dimensions for the PSY-5 Scale Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR-r), on which officers in this sample produced more normative scores (M = 49T, SD = 8), these findings likely reflect introversion and social avoidance which are assessed by this scale. The interpersonal functioning domain scale SAV demonstrated robust associations with similar POST criteria, in addition to social competence and teamwork problems. Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that scales from the emotional dysfunction and social avoidance


426

Assessment 22(4)

domains are associated as expected with emotional problems, but also with criteria that may be affected by a lack of engagement with one’s environment and other people, including routine task performance, decision making, assertiveness, conscientiousness, and social competence. Scales from the MMPI-2-RF thought and behavioral dysfunction domains had fewer associations with the criteria in this study, which is contrary to findings from Sellbom et al. (2007), who reported robust associations with police misconduct for RC4 (Antisocial Behavior), RC6 (Ideas of Persecution), RC8 (Aberrant Experiences), and RC9 (Hypomanic Activation). However, in the Sellbom et al. (2007) study, the vast majority of officers had served for approximately 4 to 9 years, with 16% of officers in that sample having only served 1 to 3 years. In the current study, police officers served an average of 2 years and no longer than 3 years before supervisors rated their performance. It is possible that difficulties associated with higher scores on scales in the thought dysfunction and externalizing behavior domains do not have a sufficient opportunity to manifest early on in a police officer’s employment. This period tends to be more structured and closely supervised. Police officers demonstrating peculiar cognitions or a propensity for behavioral problems might be at greatest risk of issues when expected to function more independently, a situation which requires sound decisions and responsible actions with less departmental oversight. Indeed, the results of this study converge with those of Tarescavage et al. (2015), who generally did not find that high scores on the thought dysfunction and behavioral dysfunction scales predicted problem behaviors in police officers’ first year of employment. Follow-up ratings after the current sample has been employed for several years would enable a test of the hypothesis that constructs associated with thought and behavioral dysfunction are more likely to lead to job-related difficulties later on in a police officer’s service. The results of this study have practical implications. As alluded to earlier, one consideration when evaluating the utility of a psychological test in preemployment screenings of police officers is their ability to assess job-relevant constructs. When psychological tests are legally challenged in discrimination cases, whether under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, et seq, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, their defense rests on the ability of the employer to demonstrate that the tests are job relevant and their use is consistent with business necessity. Psychological screenings of police officers meet this legal standard only if they can be shown empirically to measure psychological constructs that facilitate or impede safe and effective work performance. For this reason, we mapped the criteria for the current study onto the California POST job-related screening dimensions, which are among the most comprehensive and detailed (as well as often emulated) state standards for assessment of police officers (Corey & Borum, 2013). In this manner, we were able

to investigate the utility of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales in police officer screenings in the context of legal and regulatory standards that mandate that psychological evaluations (which include psychological testing) be job relevant and consistent with business necessity, and the results of our study provide preliminary support that scales from the MMPI-2-RF can predict job relevant performance. More broadly, it is important for assessment science to link test findings to both conceptually meaningful and practically relevant criteria. The former provide information needed to appraise the construct validity of test scores, whereas the latter can guide practical decision-making in applied settings. In this context, combined with other published studies establishing job-relevant associations between prehire MMPI-2-RF scores and subsequently problematic job performance in police officers and recruits (e.g., Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage et al., 2015), our findings lend support to and can guide use of the test in preemployment psychological evaluations of police candidates. Because research in this setting is particularly challenging, owing to challenges discussed earlier, multiple studies of MMPI-2-RF predictors of job-relevant outcomes are needed to identify generalizable associations appropriate for use in clinical practice. The study has limitations that warrant discussion. First, we had a relatively small sample, which, as discussed in the “Method” section, limited our power to detect statistically significant associations between test scores and criteria. This issue is particularly salient to the current investigation because, as also discussed in detail in the “Method” section, we conducted significance tests on correlations that were artificially diminished because of range restriction. This limitation, which is inherent in field research of the type reported here, underscores the need to replicate and integrate our findings with those of other investigations. Second, because our sample had a disproportionate number of males, we were unable to conduct analyses on the female sample, which was too small. Finally, as mentioned earlier, supervisor ratings of police officer performance were made after an average of only 2 years posthire, which may not have provided a sufficient sample of behavior for certain types of problems to manifest. These limitations notwithstanding, the current study, particularly when integrated with the results of other investigations, provides support for use of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales in psychological assessments of police officer candidates. Scales from this test demonstrated associations with several job-related performance problems, particularly measures included in the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains of the inventory. From an assessment science perspective, this investigation demonstrates the utility of disattenuation procedures to estimate correlations corrected for range-restriction with posthire outcomes in this setting.


427

Tarescavage et al. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI-2-RF publisher (University of Minnesota Press) and distributor (Pearson Assessments). He receives royalties on sales of MMPI-2-RF materials and research grants from the MMPI-2-RF publisher.

Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991). Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 122-128. doi:10.1080/00223890701845146 Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in mental health, forensic, and nonclinical settings: An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 119-121. doi:10.1080/00223890701845120 Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008-2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society, 19, 20-46. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Local Police Departments, 2007. Washington, DC: Author. California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (2005). Peace officer psychological screening dimensions. Sacramento, CA: Author. Carpenter, B. N., & Raza, S. M. (1987). Personality characteristics of police applicants: Comparisons across subgroups and with other populations. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 15(1), 10-17. Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45, 445-480. Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964). Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 511-537. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2014). User’s guide for the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Corey, D. M., & Borum, R. (2013). Forensic assessment for high risk occupations. In R. K. Otto & I. B. Weiner (Eds.),

Handbook of psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 246-269). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4, 46-58. Graham, J. R. (2012). The MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & McNulty, J. L. (1999). MMPI-2 correlates for outpatient community mental health settings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (2008). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 239-249. doi:10.1080/00223890701884954 Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The Personality Psychopathology—Five (PSY–5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432-443. doi:10.1037/ a0025830 Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291-315). New York, NY: Springer. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hiatt, D., & Hargrave, G. E. (1988). MMPI profiles of problem peace officers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 722731. Hoffman, C. C. (1995). Applying range restriction corrections using published norms: Three case studies. Personnel Psychology, 48, 913-923. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 111-133. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095213 Lowmaster, S. E., & Morey, L. C. (2012). Predicting law enforcement officer job performance with the Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 254-261. Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519-552. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community


428

Assessment 22(4)

Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 343-367. McCord, D. M., & Drerup, L. C. (2011). Relative practical utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Clinical Scales versus the Clinical Scales in a chronic pain patient sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33, 140-146. doi:10.1080/ 13803395.2010.495056 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1973). Task force on police. Washington, DC: Author. Ones, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2003). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for personality scales: Implications for range-restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 570-577. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sackett, P. R., & Ostgaard, D. J. (1994). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680-684. Scharf, P. (2006, August 11). Managing law enforcement integrity: The state of the art (a summary of findings for law enforcement leaders). Paper presented at the Center for Society Law and Justice, New Orleans, LA. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On the hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 576-590. doi:10.1037/a0012536 Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a Batterers’ Intervention Program. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 129-135. doi:10.1080/00223890701845153

Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985-1004. Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. W. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196-205. Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behavior. Assessment, 22(1), 116-132. doi:10.1177/ 1073191114534885 Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008-2011). Minnesota Mutliphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. van der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I. M., Rossi, G. M. P., van der Veld, W. M., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2013). Personality and psychopathology: Mapping the MMPI-2-RF on Cloninger’s psychobiological model of personality. Assessment, 20, 576-584. Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L. (2005). A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) and clinical scales. Assessment, 12, 290-294. Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. I., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, W. M. (2007). Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14, 197-205.


Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behavior.

Does True Neurocognitive Dysfunction Contribute to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2nd Edition-Restructured Form Cognitive Validity Scale Scores?

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behavior and collateral self-report test scores.

Criterion Validity and Practical Utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in Assessments of Police Officer Candidates.

Validity of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2 – Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores as a function of gender, ethnicity, and age of bariatric surgery candidates.

Failed back surgeries and minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) profiles.

Comment on: Validity of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores as a function of gender, ethnicity, and age of bariatric surgery candidates.

Correlates of Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire Scales with selected Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scales.

Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2-restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of violating probation after felonious crimes.

Analysis of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form response bias indicators as suppressors or moderators in a medical setting.

Of psychometric means: Starke R. Hathaway and the popularization of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Characteristics of Parricide Offenders with Schizophrenia in Korea.

Results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 among gestational surrogacy candidates.

Interpretive Reliability of Six Computer-Based Test Interpretation Programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.

The relationship between personality inventory scores and self-ratings.

Hemispheric asymmetries of affective processing as determined by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Associations between DSM-5 section III personality traits and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scales in a psychiatric patient sample.

Personality disorder correspondence between the million behavioral health inventory (MBHI) and the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI).

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory profile in patients with restless legs syndrome.

The use of global ratings in OSCE station scores.

Reliability and validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in evaluations of chronic low back pain patients.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): incremental validity in predicting early postoperative outcomes in spine surgery candidates.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores generated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF test booklets: internal structure comparability in a sample of criminal defendants.

An adoption and a cross-fostering study of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Psychopathic Deviate Scale.