Controversies in Industrial and Organizational Assessment
Everleigh
CaseDescriptionMs.FPoliceCandidateInterpretiveReport.pdf
®
SAMPLE REPORT
Case Description: Ms. F – Police Candidate Interpretive Report
Ms. F is a 25-year-old, single female who applied to a small, rural police department for an entry-level police officer position. Her background showed her to be rule-compliant, an excellent student, and well-regarded by employers and former teachers. While attending community college to earn her associate’s degree in criminal justice, she lived at home with her parents and worked as a barista. Personal references and other collateral sources described Ms. F as reliable, conscientious, and pleasant but not outgoing. Work references reported that she has never been late for work and has no history of reprimands or other disciplinary actions. No discrepancies were noted between her self-reported history and collateral information. During the interview, Ms. F presented as inhibited, rigid, and constrained, particularly when responding to hypothetical situations outside her range of experience.
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 Ms. F’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-F EL 6/20
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report David M. Corey, PhD, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD ID Number: Ms. F Age: 24 Gender: Female 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
0
42
2
58
2
47
12
54
9
51
12
85
8
58
120
110
Cannot Say (Raw): 0
T Score: F
444342
F 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 7199.89893 99.899.4Percent scoring at or below test taker:
L K
Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity
RBS
13
71
65
7
8293
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
CRIN
4
45
39
5
92
100100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 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
5
44
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
1
41
100
0
33
100
3
53
100
5
57
100
0
35
100
1
50
100
2
49
100
0
34
100
0
32
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:
91 80891296 99.1 24 92 9241 10
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: Ms. F 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
1
40
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
0
38
100
0
40
100
1
44
100
0
40
100
2
49
100
0
36
100
0
37
100
0
37
100
1
56
100
1
44
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
91 98799657 88 8689 98 1773 70 9991
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: Ms. F 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
0
35
0
37
0
39
0
39
0
39
6
46
0
32
4
41
7
66
0
40
InterpersonalExternalizing
120
110
41 45414244 43 5141 49 4543
6 8557 5 88 8 76
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
78 23576854 71 3923 10 99.670
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: Ms. F 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
5
41
100
8
60
100
1
41
100
0
34
100
3
56
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:
19 99771998
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: Ms. F 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 45 39 54 F CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN
Over-Reporting 47 58 42 51 58 F Fp Fs FBS RBS
Under-Reporting 85 71 L K
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 42 40 38 44 38 RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG
Emotional Dysfunction 44 41 44 40 40 44 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
57 60 RC2 INTR
34 49 37 36 37 44 56 41 RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE
Thought Dysfunction 53 50 THD RC6
49 RC8
56 PSYC
Behavioral Dysfunction 33 35 43 39 39 BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB
32 37 35 39 32 RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN
34 DISC
Interpersonal Functioning 46 41 41 40 66 38 SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 7
SA MP
LE
SYNOPSIS
Scores on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales raise substantial concerns about the possible impact of under-reporting on the validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, scores on the Substantive Scales indicate clinically significant interpersonal dysfunction. Interpersonal difficulties relate to social avoidance.
Comparison group findings point to additional possible concerns about a low level of positive emotions and overcontrolled behavior.
Possible job-relevant problems are identified in the following domains: Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance, Routine Task Performance, Decision-Making and Judgment, Feedback Acceptance, Assertiveness, Social Competence and Teamwork, and Conscientiousness and Dependability.
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-3 items. She also responded relevantly to the items on the basis of their content.
Over-Reporting There are no indications of over-reporting in this protocol.
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: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 8
SA MP
LE
Under-Reporting The test taker presented herself in an extremely positive light by denying a very large number of minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge1. This level of virtuous self-presentation is very uncommon even among individuals with a background stressing traditional values2. It is also quite uncommon among police candidates. Only 1.9% of the comparison group members claimed this many or more uncommon virtues. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales is uninterpretable3. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales4. The candidate's responses may be a result of unintentional (e.g., naïve) or intentional under-reporting. One way to distinguish between the two is to compare her responses to items with historical content against available collateral information (e.g., background information, interview data). Following are the test taker's responses to items with potentially verifiable historical content:
Item number and content omitted. (True) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number andcontent omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (True) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False) Item number and content omitted. (False)
Corroborated evidence of intentional under-reporting may be incompatible with the integrity requirements of the position. In addition, this level of virtuous self-presentation may reflect uncooperativeness that precludes a reliable determination of the candidate's suitability. Corroborating evidence in support of this possibility may be found in other test data, the clinical interview, or background information.
The candidate's virtuous self-presentation may reflect an overly rigid orientation to matters of morality and/or an inability to self-examine that may impair her effectiveness as a law enforcement officer. This can be explored through interview and collateral sources.
In addition, she presented herself as very well-adjusted5. This reported level of psychological adjustment is relatively rare in the general population but rather common among police candidates.
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.
In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting (claiming a large number of uncommon virtues), the following statements may not identify, or may underestimate, psychological problems that could impede the candidate's ability to perform the duties of a police officer.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 9
SA MP
LE
The test taker reports not enjoying social events and avoiding social situations6. She likely is socially introverted7, has difficulty forming close relationships8, and is emotionally restricted9.
There are no indications of clinically significant somatic, cognitive, emotional, thought, or behavioral dysfunction in this protocol. However, because of indications of under-reporting described earlier, such problems cannot be ruled out.
DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic assessment based on the test taker's MMPI-3 results. It is recommended that she be evaluated for the following, bearing in mind possible threats to protocol validity noted earlier in this report:
Interpersonal Disorders - Disorders associated with social avoidance such as avoidant personality disorder10
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.
In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting, the comparison group findings discussed below may not identify, or may underestimate, psychological problems that could impede the candidate's ability to perform the duties of a police officer.
Emotional/Internalizing Problems The test taker reports a comparatively high level of introversion and low positive emotions for a police candidate11. Only 3.4% of comparison group members convey this or a greater level of social withdrawal and low positive emotional experience.
Behavioral/Externalizing Problems The test taker's responses indicate a very low level of energy together with inhibited, overcontrolled behavior, which may be incompatible with public safety requirements for behavioral adaptability12. This level of inhibited behavior is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 5.4% of comparison group members give evidence of this level of overly constrained behavior and low activation.
Interpersonal Problems The test taker's responses indicate a level of social avoidance that may be incompatible with public safety requirements for good interpersonal functioning13. This level of socially avoidant behavior is very uncommon among police candidates. Only 1.7% of comparison group members give evidence of this or a greater level of social avoidance.
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
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 10
SA MP
LE
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 "She 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.
In light of earlier-described evidence of considerable under-reporting, the job-relevant correlates described in this section may not identify, or may underestimate, problematic tendencies that could impede the candidate's ability to perform the duties of a police officer.
Emotional Control and Stress Tolerance Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to become easily discouraged14; to have difficulty coping with stress14; and to worry about problems and be uncertain about how to deal with them15. She is also more likely to be unprepared to take decisive action in times of stress or emergency16.
She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties applying instructions appropriately under stressful conditions17 and performing under stressful conditions18.
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 conditions19.
Decision-Making and Judgment Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to be made anxious by change and uncertainty20.
Feedback Acceptance Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties accepting and responding to constructive performance feedback21.
Assertiveness Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to avoid situations that others generally view as benign and non-intimidating22; to be ill at ease in dealing with others23; and to be unsure and act hesitantly24.
She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties engaging or confronting subjects in circumstances in which an officer would normally approach or intervene25. She is also more likely to exhibit difficulties in demonstrating a command presence and controlling situations requiring order or resolution26.
Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Compared with other police candidates, the test taker is more likely to have difficulty creating and sustaining mutually satisfying relationships27 and to have a limited social support network28.
She is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties reading people, listening to others, and adapting her language and approach to the requirements of the situation29.
Conscientiousness and Dependability Problems The test taker is more likely than most police officers or trainees to exhibit difficulties reliably attending court30; in her dedication to improvement of knowledge and skills31; and with punctuality and attendance32. She is also more likely to exhibit difficulties with reliable work behavior and dependable follow-through33.
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 11
SA MP
LE
The candidate's test scores are not associated with problems in the following domains: - Integrity - 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 her 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 her 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. Uncommon Virtues (L, T Score = 85)
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 24.0%, CG 41.5%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.1%, CG 65.4%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.9%, CG 56.0%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.5%, CG 29.4%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.1%, CG 22.9%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 50.2%, CG 59.5%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 31.1%, CG 61.7%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 19.7%, CG 29.5%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 23.6%, CG 37.6%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 22.6%, CG 19.0%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 48.7%, CG 71.9%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 9.9%, CG 13.4%)
Low Positive Emotions (RC2, T Score = 57)
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 41.2%, CG 31.5%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 7.3%, CG 3.4%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 29.9%, CG 16.3%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2%, CG 5.0%)
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 12
SA MP
LE
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 33.5%, CG 13.1%)
Social Avoidance (SAV, T Score = 66) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 53.1%, CG 44.2%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 14.8%, CG 1.9%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.7%, CG 41.7%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 37.4%, CG 25.9%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 26.7%, CG 24.3%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2%, CG 5.0%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 41.5%, CG 23.9%)
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR, T Score = 60)
Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 53.1%, CG 44.2%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 13.1%, CG 3.8%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 45.7%, CG 41.7%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 37.4%, CG 25.9%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 29.9%, CG 16.3%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 26.7%, CG 24.3%) Item number and content omitted. (False; NS 30.2%, CG 5.0%) Item number and content omitted. (True; NS 41.5%, CG 23.9%)
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. (False; 2.1%; TRIN, STR) Item number and content omitted. (True; 1.5%; VRIN, F, THD, RC6, PSYC)
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 13
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: L=85 2 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 6 3 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 7, 9, 15, 16 4 Correlate: L=85, Ref. 4, 12, 16, 23 5 Test Response: K=71 6 Test Response: SAV=66 7 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 14 8 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 1, 4, 5, 8, 13 9 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 4, 23 10 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 4, 17, 24 11 Test Response: RC2=57; INTR=60 12 Inference: RC9=32; BXD=33; DISC=34 13 Inference: SAV=66 14 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 22 15 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 4, 22; INTR=60, Ref. 4 16 Correlate: BXD=33, Ref. 4, 22; RC9=32, Ref. 4, 22; SAV=66, Ref. 4; DISC=34, Ref. 4, 22 17 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 18, 21; INTR=60, Ref. 19 18 Correlate: BXD=33, Ref. 4; RC2=57, Ref. 18, 21; RC9=32, Ref. 4; SAV=66, Ref. 18, 21; DISC=34, Ref. 4 19 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 18, 21; INTR=60, Ref. 18 20 Correlate: INTR=60, Ref. 22 21 Correlate: INTR=60, Ref. 19, 21 22 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 22 23 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 4, 22; SAV=66, Ref. 4, 10, 22; INTR=60, Ref. 4, 22 24 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 4; SAV=66, Ref. 4 25 Correlate: BXD=33, Ref. 18, 19; RC2=57, Ref. 18, 21, 22; RC9=32, Ref. 18, 19; DISC=34, Ref. 18, 19;
INTR=60, Ref. 18, 19 26 Correlate: BXD=33, Ref. 4; RC9=32, Ref. 4; SAV=66, Ref. 18; DISC=34, Ref. 4 27 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 4 28 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 10, 22; INTR=60, Ref. 22 29 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 18, 21 30 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 19 31 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 18, 19 32 Correlate: RC2=57, Ref. 19, 21; SAV=66, Ref. 18, 21 33 Correlate: SAV=66, Ref. 18, 19; INTR=60, Ref. 18, 19, 20
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 14
SA MP
LE
RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST
The following studies are sources for empirical correlates identified in the Endnotes section of this report.
1. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Ayearst, L., Quilty, L. C., Chmielewski, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2015). Associations between DSM-5 Section III personality traits and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scales in a psychiatric patient sample. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000096
2. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Pymont, C., Smid, W., De Saeger, H., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2015). Measurement of DSM-5 Section II personality disorder constructs using the MMPI-2-RF in clinical and forensic samples. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000103
3. 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
4. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
5. Bianchini, K. J., Aguerrevere, L. E., Curtis, K. L., Roebuck-Spencer, T. M., Frey, F. C., Greve, K. W., & Calamia, M. (2018). Classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)-Restructured Form Validity Scales in detecting malingered pain-related disability. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000532
6. Bridges, S. A., & Baum, L. J. (2013). An examination of the MMPI-2-RF L-r scale in an outpatient protestant sample. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 32(2), 115–123. Questia. http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-3083628231/an-examination-of-the-mmpi-2-rf-l-r-scale-in-an-outpatient
7. Brown, T. A., & Sellbom, M. (2020). The utility of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting underreporting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1539003
8. 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
9. Crighton, A. H., Marek, R. J., Dragon, W. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). Utility of the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in detection of simulated underreporting: Implications of incorporating a manipulation check. Assessment, 24(7), 853–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115627011
10. 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
11. Finn, J. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2015). Dichotomous versus polytomous response options in psychopathology assessment: Method or meaningful variance? Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000044
12. Forbey, J. D., Lee, T. T. C., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Arbisi, P. A., & Gartland, D. (2013). Associations between MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores and extra-test measures of personality and psychopathology. Assessment, 20(4), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113478154
13. Forbey, J. D., Lee, T. T. C., & Handel, R. W. (2010). Correlates of the MMPI-2-RF in a college setting. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020645
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 15
SA MP
LE
End of Report
14. Franz, A. O., Harrop, T. M., & McCord, D. M. (2017). Examining the construct validity of the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Functioning Scales using the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder as a comparative framework. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1222394
15. Marion, B. E., Sellbom, M., Salekin, R. T., Toomey, J. A., Kucharski, L. T., & Duncan, S. (2013). An examination of the association between psychopathy and dissimulation using the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales. Law and Human Behavior, 37(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000008
16. Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). Validity of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) L-r and K-r scales in detecting under-reporting in clinical and non-clinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 20(4), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012952
17. Sellbom, M., & Smith, A. (2017). Assessment of DSM-5 Section II personality disorders with the MMPI-2-RF in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1242074
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
24. Van der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I. M., Rossi, G. M. P., Grundel, G., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2013). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form and the standard MMPI-2 Clinical Scales in relation to DSM-IV. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000140
MMPI®-3 Police Candidate Interpretive Report ID: Ms. F 10/14/2019, Page 16
SA MP
LE
- MMPI3 PCIR_Ms F_060820_PDF
- MMPI3_pcir_100083_F_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:
- f63:
- f64:
- f65:
- f66:
