the mmpi-2-rf police candidate interpretive report (pcir)

The MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report (PCIR)

IACP Police Psychological Services Section MeetingOctober 26, 2014Orlando, Florida

Yossef S. Ben-Porath David M. CoreyKent State University Corey & Stewart

DisclosureYossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota, and distributor, Pearson. As co-author of the MMPI-2-RF he receives royalties on sales of the test.

Yossef Ben-Porath and David Corey have received research funds from the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota Press.

Both presenters are authors of the PCIR, for which they will receive royalties.

Overview• Benefits and appropriate uses of computer-based interpretive reports

• Empirical foundation of the PCIR• Features and structure of the PCIR• Review of sample reports

Snyder, Widiger, & Hoover (1990)• Economic use of professional resources• Accuracy and consistency of scoring and implementation of interpretive decision rules

• Virtually unlimited capacity for storage, indexing, and retrieval of empirical findings from the clinical and research literature regarding test-behavior relationships

Automated Interpretive Reports: Advantages of Use

• Ease of clinical interpretation aided by:• Reliance on a uniform score threshold(e.g., > 65T)

• Established interpretive meaning contained in the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011)

• Supported by findings obtained from more than 240 peer-reviewed studies

• Test’s hierarchical structure

MMPI-2-RF Interpretation

• Preselection and selection factors require non-clinical interpretive adjustments, including the interpretation of:• Under-reporting scale scores• Subclinical substantive scale scores

MMPI-2-RF Interpretation in Personnel Selection

• Six peer-reviewed studies reveal more than 200 significant correlations between MMPI-2-RF scores and job-relevant outcome measures:• At score magnitudes < 65T• Involving 30 of the 42 substantive scales

• Impact of selection ratios requires use of different cutoff scores for each scale

MMPI-2-RF Interpretation in Personnel Selection

Bow, Flens, & Gould (2010)• Actuarially-based • Interpretation considers response style• Significance level used for cutoff scores is known

• Interpretive statements depend on score magnitude

• Relies on context-specific normative data

Automated Interpretive Reports: Criteria for Use in High-Stakes Testing

• Evidence-Based• All correlate-based interpretations are based on findings from peer-

reviewed research

• Transparent• The source of every interpretive statement in the report is identified

• Relevant• All interpretive statements pertain to behaviors and performance

domains that are meaningful in police work

• Updated Comparison Group• Police officer candidate comparison group based on 2,074 subjects

from agencies throughout North America

PCIR Features

• N: 131 male officers• No invalid protocols

• Age: M = 26.3, SD = 4.9

• Years of education: M = 14.1, SD = 1.6

• Race: 92.3% Caucasian, 4.6% African American, 2.3% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian

MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report: Expanded Police Officer Comparison Group

North American RegionGender

TotalMale Female

Pacific 136 136 272

West 381 381 762

Midwest 131 131 262

South 224 224 448

Northeast US and Canada 165 165 330

Total 1,037 1,037 2,074

Police Candidate CG vs. Law Enforcement Candidate CG

VRIN-r T RIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

Mean -Police Candidate CG 41 52 44 45 45 46 46 59 63Standard Dev 7 6 4 5 6 6 7 13 8

Mean - Law Enforcement Candidate CG 41 52 44 44 45 46 45 59 63Standard Dev 7 6 3 4 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

Police Candidate CG (n = 2074) Law Enforcement Candidate CG (n = 674)

F

F


EID T HD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Mean -Police Candidate CG 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

Mean - Law Enforcement Candidate CG 36 44 46 40 42 41 44 45 46 38 44 43Standard Dev 6 6 7 5 6 6 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 (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales


Higher-Order Restructured Clinical


MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC ST W AXY ANP BRF MSFMean - Police Candidate CG 42 46 44 46 43 46 42 43 41 41 45 41 44 45Standard Dev 6 4 6 7 5 2 4 4 6 6 4 5 5 8

Mean - Law Enforcement Candidate CG 43 47 44 45 43 45 42 43 41 42 45 41 44 44Standard Dev 6 5 5 7 5 1 4 4 6 7 3 5 4 7

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and InternalizingScales


Somatic Internalizing


JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MECMean - Police Candidate CG 48 45 42 44 43 46 46 41 46 42 56Standard Dev 9 6 6 9 7 6 8 6 5 8 11

Mean - Law Enforcement Candidate CG 49 45 42 44 43 46 46 42 45 41 57Standard Dev 9 6 6 9 6 6 7 6 4 8 11

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales


Externalizing Interpersonal Interest


AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INT R-r

Mean -Police Candidate CG 51 44 50 39 47Standard Dev 7 7 8 6 7

Mean - Law Enforcement Candidate CG 50 43 51 39 47Standard Dev 6 6 7 6 7

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales


• Comprehensive User’s GuidePCIR Features

User’s Guide for the PCIR• Complete description of the structure

and rationale for the report• Comprehensive list of references• Summaries of the key empirical studies

underlying the report• Detailed instructions for producing

reports via Q-Local and Q-global

PCIR Structure• Synopsis• Protocol Validity• Clinical Findings

• Diagnostic Considerations• Comparison Group Findings• Job-Relevant Correlates by POST

Domains• Item-Level Information• Endnotes and References

Case Example:

Ms. D

Under-Reporting Profile

Case Example:

Mr. C

Scale Scores In the Clinical andModerate Elevation Ranges

the mmpi-2-rf police candidate interpretive report (pcir)

Documents