Abetting the Vetting: Pre-Hire Intervention Programs
Dr. Marc Kruse Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services &
Austin Fire Department
Psychological & Behavioral Health Screening of Fire and EMS Applicants:
Can we Predict & Reduce “Bad” Hires? Presentation at the 9th Annual Advanced Topics in Medical Direction
at the 2017 NAEMSP Conference
Presentation Outline
� Rationale for Pre-Hire Assessment � Our Process � Evidence of Effectiveness � Changing the Culture � Suggestions for Consideration
Percent of AFD Applicants & Test Takers Hired by AFD in the Last 10 Years
Hiring Process Applied Tested Hired
-‐ 2006 3185 2236 111 (3.5%/5.0%)
-‐ 2008 3821 2756 58 (1.5%/2.1%)
-‐ 2011 3314 2906 85 (2.6%/2.9%)
-‐ 2012 4865 2670 102 (2.1%/3.8%)
-‐ 2013 5297 2882 76 (1.4%/2.6%)
-‐ 2015 3500 2107 105 (3.0%/5.0%)
TOTAL 24,043* 15,557* 537 (2.2%/3.5%)
General Assumptions • Fire and EMS jobs are highly desirable • Not everyone is a “Good Fit” for fire and/or EMS service • Firefighters & EMS Providers who are not a “good fit”… • Have a negative impact on a department • Pose potential safety and liability risks • Are often identified early in a career • Tendency to become “25-year problems”
• Disqualifying an applicant who is a “poor fit” for fire service or EMS during pre-hire phase has significant benefits.
Goal of Pre-Hire PBH Evaluation: Screen out applicants who are a “Poor Fit” � Values of the Department (Transportability Study Report)
� Honesty, integrity, responsibility, dependability, etc. � Personality traits and characteristics
� Self-Control, Amicability, Hostility, Tolerance, etc. � Behavioral health history & risks
� Arrests, work history, physical exercise, etc. � Stress Response
� Ability to respond to and recover from stressful experiences appropriately
Goal of Pre-Hire PBH Evaluation: Screen out applicants who are a “Poor Fit”
NOT an evaluation of: • Whether an applicant has a diagnosable psychological/
mental health condition* • How “nice” an applicant is • How much an applicant “wants” to be a firefighter or EMS
Provider and/or work for your Department
First Year Results (AFD): 17.8% Failed! • Applicant with 3 DUI Arrests (no convictions) • Applicant fired from previous Fire Job for assaulting his
Lieutenant • Applicant currently getting divorced because of a
disturbing pattern of domestic violence • Series of applicants who struggled with the truth • Military Veteran applicant with a significant service-
connected disability rating for PTSD • Former unsuccessful AFD employee*
AFD Pass/Fail Rate for Pre-Hire PBH Hiring Process Evaluated Failed PBH % Failed
-‐ 2002 72 1 1.4% -‐ 2003 83 1 1.2% -‐ 2006 140 4 2.9% -‐ 2008 95 3 3.2% -‐ 2011 257 5 1.9% Pre-‐2012 647 14 2.2% -‐ 2012 135 24 17.8% TOTAL 782 38 4.9%
Pre-Hire PBH Evaluation: • What are we doing? • Does it actually work? • Can we make it better? • Can I replicate our success for other departments?
Pre-Hire PBH Evaluation • Paper/Pencil Assessment (~$25) • Psychological History Questionnaire (PsyQ) • Behavioral Risk Assessment: Past “Bad” Deeds
• California Psychological Inventory (CPI) • Personality Traits & Risk Assessment • 434-Item True/False Questionnaire; Public Safety
Norms • 60-90 Minute Psychologist Interview (~$250)
Psychological History Questionnaire (PsyQ) � 14 Domains of Behavioral Health History/Risk Assessment
� Education, Employment, Military Experience, Law Enforcement Experience, Driving Record, Financial History, Legal History, Substance Use, General Information, Developmental History, Adult Relationships, Parental Responsibilities, Psychological Treatment and Evaluation History, and Job Relevant Sexual History
� Unconditional and Conditional Disqualifying Admissions (Severity, Frequency, or Recency)
� Problem Points – Percentile Rank Relative to Public Safety Applicants (since 2011)
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) � 3 Validity Profiles (“Fake Good”, “Fake Bad”, “Random”) � 7 Job Suitability Risk “Snapshots”
� Poorly Suited Applicant, Job Performance, Integrity, Anger Management, Alcohol Use Concerns, Illegal Drug Use, Substance Abuse Proclivity
� 19 “Basic Folk” Personality Scales � Socialization, Self-Control, Empathy, Responsibility, Tolerance, Intellectual Efficiency
� 5 Structural (Level & Type) Scales � Level 1-7 � Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma Types
� 15 Special Purpose Scales � Narcissistic Personality, Hostility, Work Orientation, Amicability, Integrity, Self-Discipline
CPI “Fake Good” Profiles Hiring Process Evaluated % “Fake Good” % Failed
-‐ 2002 72 15.3% (11) 0.0% -‐ 2003 83 34.9% (29) 0.0% -‐ 2006 140 30.0% (42) 2.4% (1) -‐ 2008 95 20.0% (19) 0.0% -‐ 2011 257 36.6% (94) 0.0% Pre-‐2012 647 30.1% (195) 0.5% (1) -‐ 2012 135 38.5% (52) 11.5% (6) TOTAL 782 31.6% (247) 2.8% (7)
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
q Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
q Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
q If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants (PsyQ)
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
Rank (Civil Service Exam) -‐ ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9%
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI) California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% ↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% ↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% ↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4%
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
ü Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
q Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
q If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
Who is a “Bad Hire”? • Separated from AFD • Disciplined by Professional Standards Office • Ever been suspended? (yes/no)
• Below Average Ratings from Battalion Chiefs
Battalion Chief Ratings 1. Knowledge: Firefighter & EMT-Based tactics, policies and
procedures, territory, medical calls, etc. 2. Skills: Firefighter & EMT-Based equipment, apparatus, fire ground
and medical procedures, physical fitness 3. Professionalism: responsibility and dependability, attendance,
completion of other job-related tasks (CEs, station maintenance), contributions to AFD
4. Personality: contribution to station life, ability to work well/get along with other firefighters, first-responders, and civilian employees across a variety of work-settings
5. Overall: summary rating based on overall performance as a member of AFD
Firefighters Identified as “Bad Hires” 390 Firefighter Applicants Hired 2002-2011
2002-‐2011
No Longer with AFD (46): 11.8% -‐ 65.2% (30) Separated during academy
-‐ 15.2% (7) Separated during probaNon
-‐ 19.6% (9) Separated a^er probaNon
Disciplined by PSO (19*): 4.9%* -‐ 21.1% (4) No Longer with AFD
-‐ 46.2% (6) also rated “Below Average” by BC
Rated Below Average by BCs (63): 16.2% “Bad Hires” (110/390): 28.2%
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
Rank -‐ Slower 1.5 Mile Run ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9%
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11 (28.2%)
Rank -‐ -‐ Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ü 99.7% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% ↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% ↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% ↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4%
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI)
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ü 96.3% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ü 95.3% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ü 99.4% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ü 99.0% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 96.3% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ü 96.6% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ü 95.6% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ü 94.7% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI)
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
ü Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
ü Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
q If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
Firefighters Identified as “Bad Hires” 102 Firefighter Applicants Hired in 2012
2012 No Longer with AFD (6): 5.9% -‐ 33.3% Resigned prior to first day at academy
-‐ 33.3% Resigned first month of the academy
-‐ 33.3% Forced to resign/terminated
Disciplined by PSO (1): 1.0% -‐ Rated very highly by BC
Rated Below Average by BCs (9): 8.9% -‐ Assessed a^er probaNon
“Bad Hires” (16/102): 15.7%
Firefighters Identified as “Bad Hires” 102 Firefighter Applicants Hired in 2012
2012 2002-‐2011 No Longer with AFD (6): 5.9% 11.8% -‐ 33.3% Resigned prior to first day at academy
-‐ 33.3% Resigned first month of the academy
-‐ 33.3% Forced to resign/terminated
Disciplined by PSO (1): 1.0% 4.9% -‐ Rated very highly by BC
Rated Below Average by BCs (9): 8.9% 16.2% -‐ Assessed a^er probaNon
“Bad Hires” (16/102): 15.7% 28.2%
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11 (28.2%)
Rank -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs
Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ü 99.7% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11 (28.2%)
“Bad Hires” 2012 (15.7%)
Rank -‐ -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs ü 99.9% Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.9% ü 99.4% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ü 99.9% -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ü 99.7% -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ü 96.3% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ü 95.3% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ü 99.4% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ü 99.0% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 96.3% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ü 96.6% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ü 95.6% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ü 94.7% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI)
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
“Bad Hires” 2002-‐’11
“Bad Hires” 2012
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ü 96.3% -‐
↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ü 95.3% -‐
↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ü 99.0% -‐
↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ü 98.9% -‐
↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ü 99.9% -‐
↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 96.3% ü 98.4% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ü 96.6% -‐
↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ü 98.9% -‐
↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ü 95.6% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ü 94.7% -‐
↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐ -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐ -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐ -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐ -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI)
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
ü Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
ü Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
ü If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
ü Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
ü Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
ü If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
q Will these results remain significant over time? q Can we improve our process to identify and remove an even higher
percentage of “Bad Hires”?
Firefighters Identified as “Bad Hires” 102 Firefighter Applicants Hired in 2012
‘14 Data (Proba_on)
‘16 Data (2 Year FFs)
No Longer with AFD (6): 5.9% 5.9% -‐ 100% Separated during academy
-‐ 0% Separated during probaNon
-‐ 0% Separated a^er probaNon
Disciplined by PSO (1): 1.0% 1.0% -‐ Rated very highly by BC
Rated Below Average by BCs (9 & 15): 8.8% 14.7% -‐ Bad Driver Effect?
“Bad Hires” (16/102 & 22/102): 15.7% 21.6%
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
2012 “Bad Hires” 2014 Data
Rank -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs ü 99.9% Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.4% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
2012 “Bad Hires” 2014 Data
2012 “Bad Hires” 2016 Data
Rank -‐ -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs ü 99.9% ü 98.9% Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.4% ü 98.7% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% -‐ -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
2012 “Bad Hires” 2014 Data
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% -‐
↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% -‐
↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% -‐
↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% -‐
↓ Amicability ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Integrity ü 99.9% -‐
↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 98.4% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% -‐
↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% -‐
↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% -‐
↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI) – 2016
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
2012 “Bad Hires” 2014 Data
2012 “Bad Hires” 2016 Data
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% -‐ -‐
↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% -‐ -‐
↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% -‐ -‐
↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
↓ Amicability ü 99.4% -‐ -‐
↓ Integrity ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 98.4% -‐
↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% -‐ -‐
↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% -‐ -‐
↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% -‐ -‐
↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐ -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐ -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐ -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐ -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI) - 2016
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’11) 2014 Data
Rank -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ü 99.7% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Psychological DifficulNes ü 93.8%
Pre-Hire Behavioral Predictors of Unsuccessful Applicants & “Bad Hires”
DQ’d in 2012 (17.8%)
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’11) 2014 Data
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’12) ‘14 or ‘16 Data
Rank -‐ -‐ -‐ Psychologist RaNngs Slower 1.5 Mile Run ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↑ PsyQ History of Work DifficulNes ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ü 99.8% ↑ PsyQ History of Financial DifficulNes ü 99.8% ü 99.7% ü 99.6% ↑ PsyQ History of Substance Use DifficulNes ü 99.9% -‐ -‐
↑ PsyQ History of Psychological DifficulNes ü 93.8% ü 97.3%
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’11) 2014 Data
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ü 96.3% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ü 95.3% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ü 99.4% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ü 99.0% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 96.3% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ü 96.6% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ü 98.9% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ü 95.6% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ü 94.7% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI) - 2016
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Subscales:
DQ’d in 2012
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’11) 2014 Data
“Bad Hires” (‘02-‐’12) ‘14 or ‘16 Data
↑ Poorly Suited Candidate ü 98.2% ü 96.3% ü 98.8% ↑ NarcissisNc Personality ü 98.2% ü 95.3% ü 92.0% ↑ HosNlity ü 97.5% ü 99.4% ü 98.8% ↓ Tolerance ü 99.9% ü 99.0% ü 99.6% ↓ Amicability ü 99.4% ü 98.9% ü 98.7% ↓ Integrity ü 99.9% ü 99.9% ü 99.7% ↓ Achievement Independence ü 99.8% ü 96.3% ü 98.6% ↓ Managerial PotenNal ü 99.5% ü 96.6% ü 97.2% ↓ SocializaNon ü 98.4% ü 98.9% ü 99.4% ↓ Intellectual Efficiency ü 96.1% ü 95.6% ü 95.5% ↓ Self-‐Discipline ü 98.0% ü 94.7% ü 97.1% ↑ Job Performance Problems ü 98.1% -‐ -‐
↑ Substance Abuse Problems ü 99.4% -‐ -‐
↓ Self-‐Control ü 98.2% -‐ -‐
↓ Achievement Conformance ü 95.4% -‐ -‐
Pre-Hire Personality Predictors (CPI) - 2016
Is Pre-Hire PBH Effective?
ü Differentiate between applicants who failed PBH and those who passed?
ü Differentiate between firefighters and EMS providers identified as “Bad Hires” and those performing at or above standards?
ü If used properly, can it result in a reduced percentage of hired firefighters and EMS providers performing below standards?
ü Will these results remain significant over time? q Can we improve our process to identify and remove an even higher
percentage of “Bad Hires”? q YES!!! – Partnership with Background Investigators, Staff Physician and
Academy Leadership…
Suggestions for Further Discussion: Pre-Hire Psychological Testing
� Invest in Pre-Hire Psychological/Behavioral Health assessments. • Evidence that this can work (at a relatively low cost): ~$300/applicant vs. ~$120K to train a “Bad Hire” = 1/400!
Percent of Applicants Iden_fied as “Bad Hires”
2002-‐2011 (109-‐114)
2012 (115 & 116)
No Longer with AFD 11.8%* 5.9% Disciplined by PSO 4.9%* 1.0% Rated Below Average by BC’s 16.2%* 8.9% DQ’d by Psychologist 2.0% 17.8% TOTAL 32.2%* 33.6%
Suggestions for Further Discussion: Pre-Hire Psychological Testing
� Invest in Pre-Hire Psychological/Behavioral Health assessments.
� Use research to identify the factors that are the best predictors for your department and to evaluate the effectiveness of your pre-hire assessments.
� Carefully select, educate, and provide feedback to the psychologist(s) you hire to perform these assessments.
� Coordinate with the psychologist and use background evaluations to identify and disqualify clearly high behavioral risk applicants.
� Control the civil service appeals process.
Final Thought…
Whenever possible, collect, analyze, and use whatever data is available to improve your department’s ability to identify and reduce
“Bad Hires!”
Contact Information
For additional information, a copy of the slides, or to discuss opportunities for collaboration:
Marc Kruse, Ph.D. (512) 294-8092 (cell)