predicting law enforcement officer performance outcomes using the mmpi-2 …€¦ · ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Predicting Law Enforcement Officer Performance Outcomes Using the MMPI-2-RF
Yossi Ben-Porath Dave Corey & Casey StewartKent State University Corey & Stewart, Consulting PsychologistsKent, Ohio Portland, Oregon
IACP, 2011
Disclosures The research reported in this presentation was
supported by a grant from the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota Press
Yossef Ben-Porath serves as a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota, and distributor, Pearson, and as co-author of the MMPI-2-RF he received royalties on sales of the test
Overview Goal: Examine utility of the MMPI-2-RF scales in
predicting post-hire performance of law enforcement applicants
Methodology: Correlate pre-hire MMPI-2-RF results with FTO ratings of post-hire performance under normal and stress conditions
Background MMPI/MMPI-2 used and studied widely as pre-
employment measures with law enforcement candidates
MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) designed to assess similar constructs with improved psychometrics and more efficiently
Sellbom, Fischler, and Ben-Porath (2007) report on associations between MMPI-2-RF RC Scale Scores and law enforcement candidate outcomes
Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath (2007) Report empirical correlates and relative risk ratios
for RC Scales in a sample of Minneapolis PD candidates Outcomes Supervisor ratings
RC3, RC6, RC8 best predictors of negative outcomes
RC4 and RC9 associated with negative outcomes as well
Substantially increased risk for problematic outcomes at T scores 60 and 55.
Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath (2007) Conclusions:
Meaningful correlations between pre-hire testing and post-hire performance can be demonstrated
Requires consideration of range restriction Implies that interpretable deviations from law
enforcement means can predict increased risk for negative outcomes
Personnel Screening Law Enforcement
EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Mean - Men 36 44 48 40 41 41 44 46 46 38 44 43Standard Dev 6 7 7 5 6 7 8 7 6 6 7 8Mean - Women 37 44 45 40 43 40 44 45 46 38 44 42Standard Dev 6 7 7 5 7 6 8 7 6 5 7 7
MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (HOD) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Men (n=988) Women (n=337)Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
Current Investigation Ongoing effort to replicate and extend on
Sellbom, Fischler, and Ben-Porath (2007) with: Additional samples Additional criteria Full MMPI-2-RF
Preliminary results from Portland Police Bureau
Method MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF answer sheets gathered from
archival records (all scored for MMPI-2-RF) All candidates included in the analyses were judged
through Psychological Evaluation to be qualified for positions with Portland (Oregon) Police Bureau (PPB)
Names forwarded to PPB training division, who assigned senior FTO to complete a Selection Validation Survey Form (SVSF) for subjects who had completed probation or left the position
Method Ratings based on archived daily observation
reports on field performance dimensions 142 subjects included in this preliminary study
114 men, 28 womenMean age 30.1 (SD=7.3)Mean Education 14.2 (SD=2.2)
Portland Police Pre Hire versus Law Enforcement Candidate - Men
VRIN-r T RIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r
Mean - Portland Pre Hire 37 52 43 43 43 48 47 61 69Standard Dev 4 5 2 3 3 4 6 13 5
Mean - Law Enforcement 41 52 44 45 45 46 46 59 63Standard Dev 7 6 3 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
Portland Pre Hire (n=114) Law Enforcement Candidate (n=988)
F
F
FF
Portland Police Pre Hire versus Law Enforcement Candidate - Women
VRIN-r T RIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r
Mean - Portland Pre Hire 39 52 43 44 44 50 46 60 69Standard Dev 5 5 1 4 5 4 7 12 3
Mean - Law Enforcement 41 52 44 44 45 46 44 58 63Standard Dev 6 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
Portland Pre Hire (n=28) Law Enforcement Candidate (n=337)
F
F
FF
Portland Police Pre Hire versus Law Enforcement Candidate - Men
EID T HD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Mean - Portland Pre Hire 33 40 44 37 39 41 38 42 44 36 40 38Standard Dev 3 3 6 2 4 6 5 6 4 3 4 6
Mean - Law Enforcement 36 44 48 40 41 41 44 46 46 38 44 43Standard Dev 6 7 7 5 6 7 8 7 6 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 (HOD) and Restructured Clinical (RC) ScalesPortland Pre Hire (n=114) Law Enforcement Candidate (n=988)
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
Portland Police Pre Hire versus Law Enforcement Candidate - Women
EID T HD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Mean - Portland Pre Hire 33 40 41 37 41 41 37 40 43 36 40 37Standard Dev 3 3 5 2 6 6 5 5 0 4 4 6
Mean - Law Enforcement 37 44 45 40 43 40 44 45 46 38 44 42Standard Dev 6 7 7 5 7 6 8 7 6 5 7 7
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 (HOD) and Restructured Clinical (RC) ScalesPortland Pre Hire (n=28) Law Enforcement Candidate (n=337)
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
Correlational Findings Correlates reported here are:
For men only (to facilitate comparison with Sellbom et al. (2007)
.20-.29 (unless otherwise indicated) Not corrected for attenuation due to range restriction
(therefore underestimate validity)
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesEID
Problems on probation (other)Academic/Learning problems on probationMulti-tasking problems (normal conditions)Initiative/Drive problems
RCdNavigation problems on probationFailure to accept feedback on probation
RC1Academic/learning problems on probationLearning problems (normal conditions) r=.30
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesRC2Failure to engage subjects (on probation)Multi-tasking problems under normal and stress conditions (.30)Problems with initiative and driveProblems with commitmentProblems with conscientiousness (.35)Overall Evaluation (-.29)Would like similar employees (-.32)
RC6Academic/learning problems
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesRC9Failure to control conflict on probation (-.29)Assertiveness/control problems normal conditions (-.24)Multi-tasking under stress conditions (-.27)
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesCOGDecision-making problems under normal/stress conditionsAssertiveness/control problems under normal/stress conditionsMulti-tasking problems under stress conditions
HLPUncooperative toward peers on probationUncooperative toward supervisors on probationDecision-making problems under normal/stress conditionsAssertiveness/control problems under stress conditionsMulti-tasking problems under normal conditions
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesAGGFailure to accept feedback on probationUncooperative toward peers during probation (.37)Uncooperative toward supervisors during probation (.37)Commitment problemsTeamwork problems
ACTTactical skills normal conditions (-.22)
IPPIntegrity violation/unlawful activity on probation
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesSAVFailure to engage subjects on probationCommitment problemsIntegrity problemsConscientiousness problems (.39)
SHYFailure to engage subjects on probationCommitment problemsConscientiousness problems
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesDSFFailure to control conflict on probation (.33)Failure to engage subjects on probation (.52)Assertiveness/control problems normal/stress conditions (.33/.27)Problems with tactical skills under stress conditionsInterpersonal problems on probationMulti-tasking problems under stress conditions
PSYC-rFailure to engage subjects on probationAssertiveness/control problems under stress conditionsTactical skills problems under stress conditions
MMPI-2-RF CorrelatesINTR-rAcademic/learning problems on probationFailure to control conflict on probationFailure to engage subjects on probation (.32)Driving problems on probation
Discussion Negative outcomes associated most prominently with:
Emotional dysfunction (RC2, HLP in particular) Interpersonal dysfunction (DSF, INTR-r in particular)
Negative outcomes also associated with Low scores on RC9/ACT High scores on AGG COG, RC6/PSYC-r
Results differ from Sellbom et al. (2007) where problems associated primarily with Thought dysfunction
Different time frame Current study: Probationary period and post-probationary period Sellbom et al.: Several years post probation
Discussion Future directions:
Increase sample size Broaden population (other departments) Calculate relative risk ratios Explore development of multivariate predictors