Controversies in Industrial and Organizational Assessment
®
SAMPLE REPORT
Case Description: Mr. E – Police Candidate Interpretive Report
Mr. E is a 27-year-old, single male candidate for an entry-level police officer position in a large urban agency. His background revealed a stable work history as a lead package sorter with no reprimands or legal conflicts. Although several coworkers described him as “entitled,” “self-promoting,” and “bossy,” his supervisor (and best friend since high school) attributed those sentiments to coworker resentment over his comparatively high productivity and associated bonuses. During the interview, Mr. E frequently interrupted and spoke over the psychologist. He denied having any conflicts with coworkers and insisted that he was highly regarded and respected by the other workers on his crew. Mr. E did acknowledge that he frequently needed to reprimand his coworkers, but he viewed this as a reflection of his strong leadership skills. The psychologist’s observations noted substantial limitations in Mr. E’s capacity for insight and empathy, and in his ability to read his social environment.
Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-3 reports, but are provided here as background information. The following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. E’s responses to the MMPI-3. Additional MMPI-3 sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at PearsonAssessments.com/MMPI-3.
© 2020 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Pearson, Q-global, and Q Local are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, of Pearson plc. MMPI is a registered trademark of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. CLINA24805-E EL 6/20
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report David M. Corey, PhD, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD ID Number: Mr. E Age: 27 Gender: Male Marital Status: Not reported Years of Education: Not reported Date Assessed: 10/14/2019
Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-3 test booklet. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Technical Manual. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and MMPI are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson is a trademark in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).
This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets. Qualified licensees may excerpt portions of this output report, limited to the minimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of the examinee, in accordance with their profession's citation standards, if any. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made of this report without prior written permission from the University of Minnesota Press.
[ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ]
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 Validity Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
KLFBSFsFpFTRINVRIN
Raw Score:
Response %:
CRIN VRIN TRIN
Combined Response Inconsistency Variable Response Inconsistency True Response Inconsistency
1
39
F Fp Fs FBS RBS
Infrequent Responses Infrequent Psychopathology Responses Infrequent Somatic Responses Symptom Validity Scale Response Bias Scale
2
53
0
41
3
50
13
50
5
40
5
56
2
35
120
110
Cannot Say (Raw): 0
T Score:
444342
F
39 52 45 5745
5 4425 6 126
F
Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924
---
---
---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
71 998499.561 5810Percent scoring at or below test taker:
L K
Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity
RBS
11
65
65
7
4723
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
CRIN
1
36
39
5
54
100100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 2
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
EID THD BXD
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
0
32
100
RCd RC1 RC2 RC4
Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Antisocial Behavior
RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Activation
1
42
100
0
36
100
5
46
100
6
60
100
0
36
100
2
44
100
3
57
100
4
55
100
3
44
100
7
51
100
120
110
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
37 40394142 42 43 43 4239 42
5 5466 6 6 5 65 7
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or below test taker:
21 80658599.5 39 71 98 9887 94
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 3
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
NFC ARXCMPSTR BRFANPWRYNUC EAT HLPCOG SFD
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
MLS NUC EAT COG
Malaise Neurological Complaints Eating Concerns Cognitive Complaints
0
33
100
WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF
Worry Compulsivity Anxiety-Related Experiences Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears
SUI HLP SFD NFC STR
Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress
0
44
100
0
38
100
0
44
100
2
52
100
1
51
100
1
44
100
0
40
100
0
37
100
5
56
100
0
37
100
0
37
100
0
43
100
0
37
100
Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120
110
36 45404443 42 4141 42 4740 40 4440
4 2436 4 53 5 85 4 44
Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MLS SUI
66 98799696 99.3 8689 52 9373 70 9073
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 4
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
SFI SHYSAVACTIMPSUBJCP AGG DSFCYN DOM
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
ACT AGG CYN
Activation Aggression Cynicism
1
43
FML JCP SUB IMP
Family Problems Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Impulsivity
SFI DOM DSF SAV SHY
Self-Importance Dominance Disaffiliativeness Social Avoidance Shyness
4
53
3
52
0
39
1
48
1
49
8
54
9
55
9
69
3
50
0
40
InterpersonalExternalizing
120
110
41 45414244 43 5141 49 4543
6 8557 5 88 8 76
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
78 90986881 94 8196 100 8170
Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
FML
0
38
42
6
59
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 5
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
INTRNEGEDISCPSYCAGGR
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
AGGR PSYC DISC NEGE INTR
Aggressiveness Psychoticism Disconstraint Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
11
63
100
3
47
100
2
45
100
3
45
100
4
59
100
120
110
47 45404242
6 7566
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Comparison Group Data: Police Candidate (Men and Women), N = 1,924
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or below test taker:
99.3 67887699.3
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 6
SA MP
LE
MMPI-3 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-3 interpretation in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.
Content Non-Responsiveness 0 36 39 50 CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN
Over-Reporting 50 41 53 40 35 F Fp Fs FBS RBS
Under-Reporting 56 65 L K
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 33 52 44 38 RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG
Emotional Dysfunction 32 36 44 51 40 44 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
36 47 RC2 INTR
44 37 37 56 37 37 43 45 RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE
Thought Dysfunction 60 57 THD RC6
55 RC8
59 PSYC
Behavioral Dysfunction 46 44 43 48 39 BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB
51 52 53 49 55 RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN
45 DISC
Interpersonal Functioning 54 69 63 40 50 38 SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 7
SA MP
LE
SYNOPSIS This is a valid MMPI-3 protocol. Scores on the Substantive Scales indicate clinically significant interpersonal dysfunction. Interpersonal difficulties relate to overly domineering behavior. Comparison group findings point to additional possible concerns about persecutory beliefs, odd perceptions and thoughts, and over-assertiveness. Possible job-relevant problems are identified in the following domains: Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance, Routine Task Performance, Decision-Making and Judgment, Feedback Acceptance, Social Competence and Teamwork, Integrity, and Conscientiousness and Dependability. PROTOCOL VALIDITY This is a valid MMPI-3 protocol. There are no problems with unscorable items. The test taker responded to the items relevantly on the basis of their content, and there are no indications of over- or under-reporting.
This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional qualified to interpret the MMPI-3 in the context of preemployment psychological evaluations of police and other law enforcement candidates. It focuses on identifying problems; it does not convey potential strengths. The information it contains should be considered in the context of the test taker's background, the demands of the position under consideration, the clinical interview, findings from supplemental tests, and other relevant information.
The interpretive statements in the Protocol Validity section of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample, as well as scores obtained by the multisite sample of 1,924 individuals that make up the Police Candidate Comparison Group.
The interpretive statements in the Clinical Findings and Diagnostic Considerations sections of the report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-3 normative sample. Following recommended practice, only T scores of 65 and higher (with a few exceptions) are considered clinically significant. Scores at this clinical level are generally rare among police candidates.
Statements in the Comparison Group Findings and Job-Relevant Correlates sections are based on comparisons with scores obtained by the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Statements in these sections may be based on T scores that, although less than 65, are nevertheless uncommon in reference to the comparison group.
The report includes extensive annotation, which appears as superscripts following each statement in the narrative, keyed to Endnotes with accompanying Research References, which appear in the final two sections of the report. Additional information about the annotation features is provided in the headnotes to these sections and in the MMPI-3 User's Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 8
SA MP
LE
CLINICAL FINDINGS Clinical-level symptoms, personality characteristics, and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to an empirically guided framework. (Please see Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for details.) Statements containing the word "reports" are based on the item content of MMPI-3 scales, whereas statements that include the word "likely" are based on empirical correlates of scale scores. Specific sources for each statement can be viewed with the annotation features of this report. The test taker describes himself as having strong opinions, as standing up for himself, as assertive and direct, and as able to lead others1. He likely believes he has leadership capabilities, but is viewed by others as overly domineering2. There are no indications of clinically significant somatic, cognitive, emotional, thought, or behavioral dysfunction in this protocol. DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic assessment based on the test taker's MMPI-3 results. It is recommended that he be evaluated for the following: Interpersonal Disorders
- Disorders characterized by excessively domineering behavior3
COMPARISON GROUP FINDINGS This section describes the MMPI-3 Substantive Scale findings in the context of the Police Candidate Comparison Group. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report. Job-related correlates of these results, if any, are provided in the subsequent Job-Relevant Correlates section. Unusual Thoughts, Perceptions, and Beliefs The test taker reports a comparatively high level of unusual thinking for a police candidate4. Only 1.0% of comparison group members convey such thoughts at this or a higher level. More specifically, he reports a relatively high level of persecutory beliefs for a police candidate5. Only 3.9% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of persecutory thinking. He reports a comparatively high level of odd perceptions and thoughts for a police candidate6. Only 3.6% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of unusual experiences. Interpersonal Problems The test taker's responses indicate a level of domineering behavior that may be incompatible with public safety requirements for good interpersonal functioning3. This level of dominance is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 5.9% of comparison group members give evidence of this level of domineering behavior. He reports a comparatively high level of over-assertiveness for a police candidate7. Only 2.7% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of interpersonally aggressive behavior.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 9
SA MP
LE
JOB-RELEVANT CORRELATES
Job-relevant personality characteristics and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this section and organized according to ten problem domains commonly identified in the professional literature as relevant to police candidate suitability. (Please see MMPI-3 User's Guide for the Police Candidate Interpretive Report for details.) Statements that begin with "Compared with other police candidates" are based on correlations with other self-report measures obtained in police candidate samples that included individuals who were subsequently hired as well as those who were not. Statements that begin with "He is more likely than most police officers or trainees" are based on correlations with outcome data obtained in samples of hired candidates during academy or field training, probation, and/or the post-probation period. Specific sources for each statement can be accessed with the annotation features of this report.
Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to become impatient with others over minor infractions8.
He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties performing under stressful conditions9.
Routine Task Performance Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties carrying out tasks under non-stressful conditions10; cognitive adaptation problems11; and report writing problems11.
Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to have thoughts, perceptions, and/or experiences that are rarely reported12.
He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties prioritizing multiple and essential functions of the job and performing them in quick succession while maintaining good environmental awareness of vital information (in other words, multi-tasking)11. He is also more likely to exhibit difficulties with effective decision making9.
Feedback Acceptance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is less likely to reflect on his behavior13 and more likely to brush off criticism and other negative feedback13.
Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to be opinionated and outspoken13; to fail to consider others' needs and feelings13; and to be demanding14. He is also more likely to hold overly suspicious views about the motives and actions of others15 and to have difficulty trusting others16.
He is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties cooperating with peers and/or supervisors17.
Integrity Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties leading to sustained internal affairs investigations18; complaints from the public19; and investigations about conduct unbecoming a police officer19.
Conscientiousness and Dependability Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties with initiative and drive, such as obtaining information and evidence needed to solve crimes and explain incidents20. He is also more likely to exhibit difficulties reliably attending court21; with punctuality and attendance22; and with conscientiousness23.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 10
SA MP
LE
The candidate's test scores are not associated with problems in the following domains: - Assertiveness - Substance Use - Impulse Control
ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION
Unscorable Responses The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-3 items.
Critical Responses Seven MMPI-3 scales—Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety-Related Experiences (ARX), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and Aggression (AGG)—have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. However, any item answered in the keyed direction on SUI is listed.
The test taker has not produced an elevated T score (> 65) on any of these scales or answered any SUI items in the keyed direction.
User-Designated Item-Level Information The following item-level information is based on the report user's selection of additional scales, and/or of lower cutoffs for the critical scales from the previous section. Items answered by the test taker in the keyed direction (True or False) on a selected scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is at the user-designated cutoff score or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative sample (NS) and of the Police Candidate (Men and Women) Comparison Group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses following the item content. Thought Dysfunction (THD, T Score = 60)
Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7%, CG 14.2%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5%, CG 16.1%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.3%, CG 1.0%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2%, CG 5.2%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 16.4%, CG 6.2%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.9%, CG 0.8%)
Ideas of Persecution (RC6, T Score = 57)
Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.3%, CG 1.0%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 30.9%, CG 8.8%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 16.4%, CG 6.2%)
Aberrant Experiences (RC8, T Score = 55)
Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7%, CG 14.2%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 38.0%, CG 15.8%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5%, CG 16.1%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2%, CG 5.2%)
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 11
SA MP
LE
Dominance (DOM, T Score = 69)
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 85.2%, CG 96.4%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 78.7%, CG 78.2%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 68.8%, CG 41.6%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.7%, CG 73.4%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.3%, CG 90.3%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 60.7%, CG 73.5%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 80.6%, CG 97.5%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 66.5%, CG 86.9%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 39.8%, CG 12.2%)
Aggressiveness (AGGR, T Score = 63)
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 85.2%, CG 96.4%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 78.7%, CG 78.2%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 68.8%, CG 41.6%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.7%, CG 73.4%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 74.3%, CG 90.3%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 74.7%, CG 98.7%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 60.7%, CG 73.5%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 66.5%, CG 86.9%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 44.6%, CG 22.7%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 42.2%, CG 30.9%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 39.8%, CG 12.2%)
Psychoticism (PSYC, T Score = 59)
Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 35.7%, CG 14.2%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 36.5%, CG 16.1%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 18.2%, CG 5.2%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 8.9%, CG 0.8%)
Critical Follow-up Items This section contains a list of items to which the test taker responded in a manner warranting follow-up. The items were identified by police officer screening experts as having critical content. Clinicians are encouraged to follow up on these statements with the candidate by making related inquiries, rather than reciting the item(s) verbatim. Each item is followed by the candidate's response, the percentage of Police Candidate Comparison Group members who gave this response, and the scale(s) on which the item appears.
Item number and content omitted. (True; 5.1%; BXD, RC9, IMP, DISC) Item number and content omitted. (True; 1.0%; F) Item number and content omitted. (True; 5.0%; VRIN, BXD, RC9, IMP, DISC)
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 12
SA MP
LE
ENDNOTES
This section lists for each statement in the report the MMPI-3 score(s) that triggered it. In addition, each statement is identified as a Test Response, if based on item content, a Correlate, if based on empirical correlates, or an Inference, if based on the report authors' judgment. (This information can also be accessed on-screen by placing the cursor on a given statement.) For correlate-based statements, research references (Ref. No.) are provided, keyed to the consecutively numbered reference list following the endnotes.
1 Test Response: DOM=69 2 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 3 Inference: DOM=69 4 Test Response: THD=60; PSYC=59 5 Test Response: RC6=57 6 Test Response: RC8=55 7 Test Response: AGGR=63 8 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; AGGR=63, Ref. 2, 4, 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 2, 4, 12 9 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2 10 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 8, 10 11 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2 12 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 12; RC8=55, Ref. 4, 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 4, 12 13 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 2 14 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 4 15 Correlate: PSYC=59, Ref. 4 16 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 4, 12 17 Correlate: DOM=69, Ref. 7; AGGR=63, Ref. 2, 10 18 Correlate: RC8=55, Ref. 12; PSYC=59, Ref. 12 19 Correlate: RC6=57, Ref. 10, 12 20 Correlate: PSYC=59, Ref. 9, 11 21 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 10, 12; RC8=55, Ref. 10; PSYC=59, Ref. 10, 12 22 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 2; RC8=55, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2 23 Correlate: THD=60, Ref. 2; RC8=55, Ref. 2; AGGR=63, Ref. 2; PSYC=59, Ref. 2
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 13
SA MP
LE
RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST
The following studies are sources for empirical correlates identified in the Endnotes section of this report.
1. Ayearst, L. E., Sellbom, M., Trobst, K. K., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Evaluating the interpersonal content of the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.730085
2. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
3. Cox, A., Courrégé, S. C., Feder, A. H., & Weed, N. C. (2017). Effects of augmenting response options of the MMPI-2-RF: An extension of previous findings. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1323988. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1323988
4. 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, 31, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9172-7
5. Kastner, R. M., Sellbom, M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). A comparison of the psychometric properties of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory full-length and short-form versions. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025832
6. Menton, W. H., Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Marek, R. J., Hicks, A. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2019). Equivalence of laptop and tablet administrations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. Assessment, 26(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117714558
7. Roberts, R. M., Tarescavage, A. M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Roberts, M. D. (2018). predicting post-probationary job performance of police officers using CPI and MMPI-2-RF test data obtained during preemployment psychological screening. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1423990
8. Tarescavage, A. M., Brewster, J., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Use of pre-hire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) police candidate scores to predict supervisor ratings of post-hire performance. Assessment, 22(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114548445
9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114534885
10. 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(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115575070
11. Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., Gupton, H. M., & Ben-Porath Y.S. (2015). Criterion validity and practical utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in assessments of police officer candidates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(4), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.995800
12. Tarescavage, A. M., Fischler, G. L., Cappo, B. M., 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(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000041
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 14
SA MP
LE
End of Report
13. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Mr. E 10/14/2019, Page 15
SA MP
LE
- MMPI3 PCIR_Mr E_PDF
- MMPI3_pcir_102026_E_MARKUP
- f0:
- f1:
- f2:
- f3:
- f4:
- f5:
- f6:
- f7:
- f8:
- f9:
- f10:
- f11:
- f12:
- f13:
- f14:
- f15:
- f16:
- f17:
- f18:
- f19:
- f20:
- f21:
- f22:
- f23:
- f24:
- f25:
- f26:
- f27:
- f28:
- f29:
- f30:
- f31:
- f32:
- f33:
- f34:
- f35:
- f36:
- f37:
- f38:
- f39:
- f40:
- f41:
- f42:
- f43:
- f44:
- f45:
- f46:
- f47:
- f48:
- f49:
- f50:
- f51:
- f52:
- f53:
- f54:
- f55:
- f56:
- f57:
- f58:
- f59:
- f60:
- f61:
- f62: