View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Available MMPI-2-RF Resources 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
Practical Guide
Practical Guide
5
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.”
6
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
v Use an explicit set of suitability criteria v Be familiar with the job and its demands,
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.”
7
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
v Use an explicit set of suitability criteria v Be familiar with the job and its demands,
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
8
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 a high demand police officer selection content: An illustration. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1044-1049. doi: 10.1037/pas0000013
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. 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 predict supervisor 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 if police officer problem behavior. Assessment, 22, 116-132. doi: 10.1177/1073191114534885
Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2016). A prorating method for estimating MMPI-2-RF Scores from MMPI responses: Examination of score fidelity and illustration of empirical utility in the PERSEREC Police Integrity Study 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 Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in assessments of police officer candidates. 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 behavior and collateral self-report test scores. Psychological Assessment, 27, 125-137. doi: 10.1037/pas0000041
9
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)"
10
Best Practices
v Conduct the interview after reviewing the findings from psychological testing and personal history/background investigation
Best Practices
v Conduct the interview after reviewing the findings from psychological testing and personal history/background investigation
v Avoid repeating test items verbatim; probe for clarification in a way that doesn’t explicitly link the question with the test
11
Best Practices
v Conduct the interview after reviewing the findings from psychological testing and personal history/background investigation
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
12
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
13
Interpreting Underreporting Scales
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
14
Interpreting Underreporting Scales
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
15
Interpreting Underreporting Scales
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
16
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
17
18
19
Corey, D. M., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (in press). Risks associated with overcontrolled behavior in police officer recruits. Psychological Assessment Ø Designed to explore findings showing seemingly counterintuitive
negative associations between externalizing scale scores measuring disinhibition (BXD, RC4, JCP, SUB, DISC-r) and misconduct using a diverse sample of hired police officer candidates (N=508).
Ø Hypothesized that substantially below-average externalizing scale scores (measuring disinhibition rather than antagonism) are associated with adverse post-hire outcomes.
40 April 27, 2018 Corey, Sellbom, & Ben-Porath
SVS / MMPI-2-RF BXD RC4 JCP SUB DISC-r
Cognitive Adaptation
Problems
-.14 -.15 -.07 -.15 -.16
Interpersonal Problems -.04 -.04 -.04 -.09 -.03
Conscientiousness
Problems
-.07 -.09 -.05 -.10 -.06
Externalizing Problems -.09 -.11 -.05 -.13 -.07
Assertiveness Problems -.15 -.11 -.12 -.09 -.16
Stress Reactivity
Problems
-.18 -.16 -.11 -.13 -.21
General Negative
Outcomes
-.13 -.09 -.11 -.13 -.14
20
Locally Weighted Regression Smoothing Curves
01
23
Gene
ral N
egati
ve O
utcom
es
30 40 50 60 70Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
bandwidth = .8
Lowess smoother
Conclusions
Low T scores (< 38) on MMPI-2-RF externalizing scales that assess disinhibition (but not antagonism) are associated prospectively with increased risk for problems related to:
– Cognitive adaptation– Externalizing behavior (reacting to problems with the proper degree of restraint and control)
– Stress reactivity– Assertiveness– General negative outcomes
21
Conclusions
Clinically elevated T scores (> 65) are also associated with adverse outcomes, as are comparatively high elevations:
q > 57 on BXD and RC4 q > 61 on SUB q > 65 on JCP and DISC-r
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
22
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.”
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
23
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
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
24
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
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.”
25
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
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
26
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
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
27
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
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
28
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?
Demonstration Case: Mr. M
29
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
Integration Model Applied
1. Assess protocol validity
30
MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales
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
31
Integration Model Applied
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
Integration Model Applied
2. Assess substantive scale findings
32
MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
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
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43
6 7577 6 710 7 76 8
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
47 82928182 29 7772 75 9545 47
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 3 Mr. M
33
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
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MLS SUI
63 93658395 99.3 9088 50 9448 81 2588
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 4 Mr. M
34
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
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 5 Mr. M
35
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
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
99.5 62508780
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 6 Mr. M
36
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
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report02/20/2015, Page 7 Mr. M
37
Comparison Group Findings
Job-Relevant Correlates
38
Risk-Related Findings: Normal-Range Personality Testing
Ø Comparatively lower interpersonal awareness and situational sensitivity
Integration Model Applied
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.”
39
Integration Model Applied
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)
Integration Model Applied
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
40
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.”
Integration Model Applied
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
41
Integration Model Applied
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
Integration Model Applied
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)
42
Integration Model Applied
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
Integration Model Applied
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
43
Integration Model Applied
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
44
Case Material
Background information v Agency-provided background investigation report
v Self-reported history (written questionnaire and interview)
v Mental health treatment records (relationship counseling)
MMPI-2-RF (PCIR) Normal-range personality testing Clinical interview
Integration Model Applied
1. Assess protocol validity
45
MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales
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
5
58
100
FsFBS-rRBS
Infrequent Somatic ResponsesSymptom ValidityResponse Bias Scale
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
42Percent True (of items answered): %
454544
F
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+( ):
( ):
_
99 92787599 416Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
L-rK-r
Uncommon VirtuesAdjustment Validity
RBS
11
62
100
63
8
4749
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 Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 2 Mr. P.
46
Integration Model Applied
2. Assess substantive scale findings
47
MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
EIDTHDBXD
Emotional/Internalizing DysfunctionThought DysfunctionBehavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
0
30
100
RCdRC1RC2RC3RC4
DemoralizationSomatic ComplaintsLow Positive EmotionsCynicismAntisocial Behavior
RC6RC7RC8RC9
Ideas of PersecutionDysfunctional Negative EmotionsAberrant ExperiencesHypomanic Activation
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
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43
6 7577 6 710 7 76 8
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
24 68929682 29 8747 93 8968 99
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 Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 3 Mr. P.
48
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
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
Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120
110
42 43464446 46 4342 41 4541 41 4544
6 5764 2 44 6 46 5 85
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MLS SUI
63 99908395 99.3 9088 96 9497 97 7799.7
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 4 Mr. P.
49
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
1
50
100
JCPSUBAGGACT
Juvenile Conduct ProblemsSubstance AbuseAggressionActivation
AESMEC
Aesthetic-Literary InterestsMechanical-Physical Interests
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
InterpersonalExternalizing Interest
120
110
48 43444245 46 4146 46 5642
9 7966 6 68 5 118
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
76 4799.15690 65 5722 90 10096
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 5 Mr. P.
50
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
11
56
100
0
32
100
5
47
100
13
69
100
1
47
100
120
110
51 47395044
7 7687
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
86 2929980
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 Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 6 Mr. P.
51
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 58 65 F
CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r
Over-Reporting 42 42 50 45 33F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS
Under-Reporting 52 62L-r K-r
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 38 46 42 53 58RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG
Emotional Dysfunction 30 46 45 40 42 51EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
34 32RC2 INTR-r
38 52 44 51 63 48 47RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r
Thought Dysfunction 48 56THD RC6
52RC8
47PSYC-r
Behavioral Dysfunction 57 52 50 50BXD RC4 JCP SUB
63 37 67 56 69RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r
Interpersonal Functioning 37 41 46 36 37 44FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF
Interests 56 78AES MEC
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: 5701/09/2010, Page 7 Mr. P.
52
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
53
Comparison Group Findings
Job-Relevant Correlates
54
Job-Relevant Correlates
Risk-Related Findings: Normal-Range Personality Testing
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
55
Integration Model Applied
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)
Integration Model Applied
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
56
Integration Model Applied
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)
Integration Model Applied
5. Mitigation Analysis:
v Findings are predominantly convergent v No divergent findings of sufficient reliability
and quality to mitigate the risk-related findings
57
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
58
Case Material
Background information v Agency-provided background investigation report
v Self-reported history (written questionnaire and interview)
MMPI-2-RF (PCIR) Normal-range personality testing Clinical interview
Integration Model Applied
1. Assess protocol validity
59
MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales
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
1
39
100
FsFBS-rRBS
Infrequent Somatic ResponsesSymptom ValidityResponse Bias Scale
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:
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+( ):
( ):
_
59 70789462 1341Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
L-rK-r
Uncommon VirtuesAdjustment Validity
RBS
12
66
100
63
8
6249
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 Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 2
60
Integration Model Applied
2. Assess substantive scale findings
61
MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
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
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
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
36 42404644 41 4544 47 4438 43
6 7577 6 710 7 76 8
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
47 68849857 29 99.521 75 8968 57
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 Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 3
62
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
1
43
100
0
39
100
2
46
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
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MLS SUI
63 93658395 99.3 9088 50 9478 81 6488
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 4
63
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
4
70
100
JCPSUBAGGACT
Juvenile Conduct ProblemsSubstance AbuseAggressionActivation
AESMEC
Aesthetic-Literary InterestsMechanical-Physical Interests
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
InterpersonalExternalizing Interest
120
110
48 43444245 46 4146 46 5642
9 7966 6 68 5 118
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
99 90899898 92 5793 90 9179
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
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 Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 5
64
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
8
47
100
6
49
100
2
40
100
13
69
100
0
38
100
120
110
51 47395044
7 7687
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2074
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at orbelow test taker:
39 72679955
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 Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 6
65
Integration Model Applied
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
66
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 39 50CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r
Over-Reporting 47 42 42 45 42F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS
Under-Reporting 42 66L-r K-r
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 38 46 42 41 50RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG
Emotional Dysfunction 33 42 45 40 42 36EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
34 49RC2 INTR-r
38 43 44 39 43 46 40RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r
Thought Dysfunction 39 43THD RC6
52RC8
38PSYC-r
Behavioral Dysfunction 60 68 70 55BXD RC4 JCP SUB
43 56 53 47 69RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r
Interpersonal Functioning 49 34 52 55 37 44FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF
Interests 45 69AES MEC
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report Mr. G09/02/2014, Page 7
67
Synopsis
68
Clinical Findings
Clinical Findings
69
Comparison Group Findings
Job-Relevant Correlates
70
Job-Relevant Correlates
Job-Relevant Correlates
71
Risk-Related Findings: Normal-Range Personality Testing
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
Integration Model Applied
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.)
72
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.
73
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.”
Integration Model Applied
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.
74
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).
75
Integration Model Applied
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)
Integration Model Applied 6. Suitability Determination
v Are the risk-related findings relevant to the selection criteria?
v Are they consequential?
76
77
Integration Model Applied 6. Suitability Determination
v Are the risk-related findings relevant to the selection criteria?
v Are they consequential? v Are the divergent findings sufficient to mitigate
the risks?
Questions?
78
Recommended