Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Predictors of Police Officer Problem Behavior

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in a sample of law enforcement officers. MMPI-2-RF scores were collected from preemployment psychological evaluations of 136 male police officers, and supervisor ratings of performance and problem behavior were subsequently obtained during the initial probationary period. The sample produced meaningfully lower and less variant substantive scale scores than the general population and the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate comparison group, which significantly affected effect sizes for the zero-order correlations. After applying a correction for range restriction, MMPI-2-RF substantive scales demonstrated moderate to strong associations with criteria, particularly in the Emotional Dysfunction and Interpersonal Functioning domains. Relative risk ratio analyses showed that cutoffs of 45T and 50T maintained reasonable selection ratios because of the exceptionally low scores in this sample and were associated with significantly increased risk for problematic behavior. These results provide support for the predictive validity of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales in this setting. Implications of these findings and limitations of these results are discussed.

Keywords

MMPI-2-RF police candidates public safety screening personnel selection range restriction

Though police misconduct is relatively infrequent, problem behaviors in this population affect citizen safety and public opinion of the police force as a whole (Bradford, Jackson, & Stanko, 2009; Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Mastrofski, Reisig, & McCluskey, 2002). Some incidents of police misconduct garner significant media attention, which lead to dramatic increases in unfavorable attitudes toward police (Weitzer, 2002). Moreover, police problem behaviors, such as disrespect and unfair treatment, lead to decreased citizen compliance, whereas officers who are judged as fair and respectful have a positive impact on a citizens’ attitudes concerning the law (Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, & Eggins, 2012). Police misconduct also has significant financial repercussions, as financial awards and attorney fees can encompass upward of one million dollars (Kappeler, Kappeler, & del Carmen, 1993).

Because of the concerns just mentioned, the selection process for police officers is more rigorous and invasive than in other employment settings. In 1967, the U.S. federal government recommended screening of all potential police officers (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement Administration of Justice, 1967). A few years later it was further recommended that all police officers undergo an employment screening that included a written test of mental ability, an oral interview, a background investigation, and a psychological evaluation (National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1973).

Psychological assessment has since become a common practice in police officer screenings. According to a national survey, it is used to evaluate candidates in more than 90% of police departments (Cochrane, Tett, & Vandecreek, 2003; Reaves, 2010), and most states have identified standards for psychological screening (see Corey & Borum, 2013, for a review). Of these states, California has developed some of the most comprehensive standards, which require each candidate be evaluated on the following dimensions: Social Competence, Teamwork, Adaptability and Flexibility, Conscientiousness and Dependability, Impulse Control, Integrity and Ethics, Emotional Regulation and Stress Tolerance, Decision Making and Judgment, Assertiveness and Persuasiveness, and Avoiding Substance Use and Other Risk-Taking Behavior (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 2005). To this end, psychological testing is mandated and all police officer candidates are administered a minimum of two self-report instruments that measure normal and abnormal behaviors, a practice that is common in most police officer evaluations (Serafino, 2010).

A variety of psychological tests are used in police officer psychological evaluations, including the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 2007), Inwald Personality Inventory (Inwald, Knatz, & Shusman, 1982), California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956), NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa & MacCrae, 1992), Sixteen Personality Factor (Cattell & Eber, 1950), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001). In a national survey of police departments, Cochrane et al. (2003) found that the most frequently used psychological test was the MMPI-2, which was administered in more than 70% of police officer evaluations.

Since the MMPI-2’s release in 1989, a number of studies have supported its ability to predict future job performance and behavioral problems among police officers (Azen, Snibbe, & Montgomery, 1973; Bartol, 1982, 1991; Blau, Super, & Brady, 1993; Boes, Chandler, & Timm, 1997; Brewster & Stoloff, 1999; Cortina, Doherty, Kaufman, & Smith, 1992; Hiatt & Hargrave, 1988; Ones, Viswesvaran, Cullen, Drees, & Langkamp, 2003; Scogin, Schumacher, Gardner, & Chaplin, 1995; Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007; Weiss, Davis, Rostow, & Kinsman, 2003). Taken as a whole, these studies demonstrated the utility of the test’s Clinical Scales in the prediction of posthire problem behaviors. However, Sellbom et al. (2007) demonstrated that findings were relatively stronger when using the MMPI-2’s Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, which were developed by Tellegen et al. (2003) to address psychometric concerns with the Clinical Scales. The findings by Sellbom et al. (2007) converge with prior research demonstrating that the RC Scales have improved psychometric features when compared with the Clinical Scales, particularly in terms of discriminant validity (Arbisi, Sellbom, & Ben-Porath, 2008; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2007; Handel & Archer, 2008; McCord & Drerup, 2011; Scholte et al., 2012; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006; Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006; Wallace & Liljequist, 2005; Wygant et al., 2007).

The MMPI-2–Restructured Form (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is an updated version of the MMPI-2 that includes two new scale sets to assist with and complement interpretation of the RC Scales (i.e., the Higher-Order and Specific Problems Scales), as well as revised and improved versions of the MMPI-2 Validity and Personality–Psychopathology–5 (PSY-5) Scales. The Validity Scales include measures designed to detect random, acquiescent, counter-acquiescent, overreporting, and underreporting response styles. The Higher-Order Scales measure three superordinate constructs identified in factor analyses of the RC Scales (Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction, Thought Dysfunction, and Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction). As previously described, the RC Scales are psychometrically improved versions of the Clinical Scales designed to measure their core constructs. The Specific Problems Scales measure RC Scale subdomains and other more narrowly focused constructs. Finally, the PSY-5 Scales measure constructs associated with personality psychopathology. The test’s reliability and validity have been extensively documented in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011), and its psychometric performance has been studied in more than 200 published articles (University of Minnesota Press, 2013). The test manual has comparison groups for a variety of settings, including law enforcement personnel screenings. However, other than the Sellbom et al. (2007) study (which only included the RC scales), no investigation to date has documented the validity of MMPI-2-RF scale scores with police officer candidates.

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the ability of the MMPI-2-RF to predict problem behaviors among police officers. To this end, we calculated zero-order correlations between scores on the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF and supervisor evaluations of officer performance during the probationary period of their employment. A challenging aspect of this type of research is that police officers are preselected/selected based on requirements for applying, results of background investigations, outcomes of the preemployment psychological evaluation, and police academy performance—all of which occur prior to beginning their probationary employment. Therefore, the hired individuals have substantially lower and less variant scores on psychological tests than do members of the general population. This range restriction is problematic insofar as it attenuates associations between psychological test information and criteria (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; see Figure 1 for an example). In addition to police officer candidates showing greater positive adjustment, they are also more defensive than the general population (Carpenter & Raza, 1987; Hiatt & Hargrave, 1988), which further restricts the range of their psychological test scores. Past researchers have addressed the issue of range restriction in this setting by applying statistical corrections for this phenomenon (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Sellbom et al., 2007). For this reason, we report both zero-order correlations and range-restriction-corrected correlations between MMPI-2-RF scores and performance variables. Finally, we investigated the clinical utility of the correlate results by calculating relative risk ratios (RRRs) for meaningful correlations using the traditional cutoff of 65T, as well as cutoffs of 60T, 55T, 50T, and 45T. Past research has indicated that MMPI cutoffs of 60T and 55T are appropriate in this setting due to the aforementioned underreporting and positive adjustment issues (Sellbom et al., 2007), and we explored whether even lower cutoffs could produce meaningful results while maintaining reasonable selection ratios (i.e., the proportion of individuals who score at or above the designated cutoff).

Figure 1.

Hypothetical example of range restriction.

Method

Participants

MMPI-2-RF scores were derived from MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF protocols administered to 136 hired male police officers at the Portland Police Bureau (PPB). The majority of the officers (71%) were administered the MMPI-2, but because all the MMPI-2-RF items are included in the MMPI-2 booklet, it was possible to score the MMPI-2-RF. This method has documented equivalence to scoring from the MMPI-2-RF booklet (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011; Van der Heijden, Egger, & Derksen, 2010). No officers exceeded Validity Scale cutoffs associated with invalid responding as defined by the test authors (Cannot Say [CNS] > 18, Variable Response Inconsistency–Revised [VRIN-r] > 79, True Response Inconsistency–Revised [TRIN-r] > 79, Infrequent Responses–Revised [F-r] > 119, or Infrequent Psychopathology Responses–Revised [Fp-r] > 99; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). Ages ranged from 20 to 52 (M = 27.7, SD = 5.9), and years of education ranged from 12 to 22 (M = 16.0, SD = 1.2). Racial information was available only for the 38-officer subset administered the MMPI-2-RF booklet, which indicated that the racial breakdown was 78.8% Caucasian, 6.1% Hispanic, 6.1% Native Hawaiian, 6.1% Native American, and 3.0% African American. Overall, 90.3% of officers successfully completed probation compared with 5.9% who voluntarily left and 3.7% who involuntarily left the department during their probationary period.

Measures

MMPI-2-RF

The MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is a 338-item restructured version of the MMPI-2. The test has a set of 9 Validity Scales that assess whether the test-taker answered in a relevant and straightforward manner and 42 substantive scales that assess a broad range of variables relevant to psychological functioning. The substantive scales are organized into three hierarchical sets (Higher-Order Scales, Restructured Clinical Scales, and Specific Problem Scales) that measure a wide variety of clinical characteristics and one set of personality-psychopathology scales measuring clinical characteristics associated with personality disorder-related psychopathology (PSY-5 Scales). Psychometric findings document the reliability and validity of the test across a variety of settings (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011).

Selection Validity Survey

Selection Validation Survey (SVS) forms were coded by PPB Training Division personnel based on several archived performance records (described next in the Procedures section). This form was developed by the second author to measure police officer performance during the initial probationary period in a more parsimonious manner. The SVS is organized into three sections: Problem Behaviors, Field Performance Dimensions, and General Performance Dimensions (see Table 1 for a list of criteria). Problem Behavior scores were coded as 0 (no problem), 1 (problem during probation), and 2 (problem leading to separation). Field Performance Dimension scores were subdivided into ratings for normal and stress conditions. A score of 0 on either indicated no problems and a score of 1 indicated some problems. Finally, the General Performance Dimension scores were coded as 0 (no significant problems) or 1 (some problems). The SVS also contains information on probationary outcome and current employee status, as well as two 5-point Likert-type responses for overall rating (excellent–poor) and potential for hiring similar employees (absolutely–absolutely not).

Table 1.

Selection Validation Survey (SVS) Form Criteria.

Domain	Criteria
Problem Behaviors	• Academic/Learning Problems	• Failure to Accept Feedback	• Rude Behavior
	• Academic/Learning Problems	• Failure to Accept Feedback	• Deceptiveness
	• Interpersonal Problems	• Misconduct (nonsexual)	• Does not take Responsibility for Mistakes
	• Failure to Control Conflict	• Sexual Misconduct
	• Report Writing Problems	• Excessive Tardiness/Absenteeism
	• Failure to Engage Subjects as Necessary	• Uncooperative Toward Peers	• Fails to Exercise Appropriate Discretion
	• Navigational/Geography Problems	• Uncooperative Toward Supervisors	• Drug/Alcohol Problems
		• Uncooperative Toward Supervisors	• Radio Problems
		• Shows Bias Toward Others	• Uses Excessive Force
		• Uses Position for Personal Advantage	• Abuses Authority
	• Integrity Violation/Unlawful Activity	• Misses Court Appearances
	• Driving Problems
	• Conduct Unbecoming
Field Performance Dimensions	• Decision Making	• Interpersonal Skills	• Tactical Skills
	• Restraint and Control	• Learning	• Multitasking
	• Assertiveness/Control	• Learning	• Multitasking
General Performance Dimensions	• Initiative and Drive	• Integrity	• Teamwork
General Performance Dimensions	• Commitment	• Conscientiousness	• Teamwork

Procedure

Each officer was administered the MMPI-2 or MMPI-2-RF in conjunction with the mandated preemployment psychological evaluation, though some candidates were eliminated on the basis of California Psychological Inventory scores and a structured life history questionnaire before either version of the test was administered. Other components of the post-conditional-offer evaluation included a comprehensive clinical interview, cognitive testing, and review of the hiring agency’s background investigation. In contrast to most states, Oregon law prohibits the use of polygraphs in hiring decisions and makes no exemption for law enforcement candidates. Determinations of suitability (qualified vs. unqualified) were made by the second author on the basis of the aggregate evidence judged against the California POST dimensions.

Qualified and hired PPB candidates (police recruits) participated in a training academy and subsequent 16-week field training program. PPB recruits were evaluated daily during field training on an array of performance dimensions, most of which are represented on the SVS form. Using these archived daily performance reports and other personnel records obtained contemporaneously in the officers’ 16-week field training and 18-month probationary period, PPB Training Division personnel completed the SVS forms. Problems were recorded when archived records indicated two or more notations of the same counterproductive behavior during field training or when the behavior was of sufficient severity to warrant disciplinary action or termination. The two Likert-type ratings were based on the rater’s knowledge of the recruit’s performance in comparison to the recruit’s cohorts.

Data Analyses

We calculated means and standard deviations for the MMPI-2-RF validity and substantive scales to examine the response style and clinical characteristics of the sample. As a point of comparison, we contrast these descriptive statistics with those of members from the MMPI-2-RF normative sample (who by definition produced mean T scores of 50 and standard deviations of 10 on these scales) as well as with the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate comparison group reported by Corey and Ben-Porath (2014). Mean differences between samples of five or more T score points (i.e., one-half standard deviation in the general population) were considered practically meaningful, consistent with traditional benchmarks for the interpretation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF (Graham, 2012). To further investigate differences in underreporting, which is the most salient threat to protocol validity in police candidate assessments, we also provide comparisons of underreporting validity scale elevation rates.

We calculated zero-order correlations between SVS criteria and the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales to investigate the predictive validity of the test. To facilitate interpretation, criteria that mapped onto the previously described Psychological Screening Dimensions were included (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 2005). Low frequency criteria that occurred in less than 3% of cases were excluded. Though earlier research has indicated that practically meaningful MMPI correlations typically occur at r ≥ |.20| (Graham, Ben-Porath, & McNulty, 1999; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, et al., 2006), following Sellbom et al. (2007) we defined practically meaningful zero-order correlations as r ≥ |.15| due to attenuation owing to range restriction in this setting (discussed earlier).

We also calculated range-restriction corrected correlations based on formulas derived from Hunter and Schmidt (2004). Three pieces of information were required to apply the formula: (a) the zero-order correlation between the MMPI-2-RF scale score and SVS criterion, (b) the standard deviation of the MMPI-2-RF scale score in this sample, and (c) the standard deviation of the MMPI-2-RF scale score in the general population (i.e., the unrestricted standard deviation). For example, the zero-order correlation between MMPI-2-RF EID and SVS Restraint and Control Problems under Stress Conditions is .23. The standard deviation for EID was 4.0 in this sample. The general population standard deviation is 10. Using these values yields a corrected correlation of .50, which is the unbiased (in terms of range restriction) validity estimate for EID scores as predictors of Restraint and Control Problems in this sample. Normative information has been used in this manner to estimate the unrestricted standard deviation in other studies as well (Hoffman, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2003; Sackett & Ostgaard, 1994).

Finally, we calculated RRRs using cutoffs of 65T, 60T, 55T, 50T, and 45T. We calculated the RRR values by dividing the risk of a negative outcome for individuals who score at or above the cutoff by the risk of a negative outcome for individuals who score below the cutoff. We also calculated 95% confidence intervals for the RRRs, which indicate nonsignificant findings if the range overlaps with one. This finding would indicate that there is likely to be an equal risk of negative outcome for those who score at or above the cutoff and those who score below the cutoff. For scales demonstrating negative correlations with criteria, we used the same procedures but using a cutoff of <39T, which is the standard interpretive cutoff for low scores (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011), as well as lower cutoffs. We only calculated RRRs for scales that were meaningfully correlated with the study’s SVS criteria (i.e., statistically significant zero-order correlations of a magnitude r ≥ |.15|). Moreover, only RRRs that yielded selection ratios between 3.0% and 20% were calculated to reduce the risk of outliers affecting the results and false positives.

Results

Descriptive Findings

As presented in Table 2, the sample produced meaningfully higher scores on MMPI-2-RF underreporting scales Uncommon Virtues (L-r) and Adjustment Validity (K-r) compared with the normative sample. Scores on these scales were somewhat higher than the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate comparison group, especially on K-r. As expected, the elevation rates on the underreporting scales in the current sample were markedly higher than the normative sample. For example, at the lowest interpretive cutoffs recommended in the test manual (65T for L-r and 60T for K-r), 16% and 11% of the normative sample had elevations on L-r and K-r, respectively, whereas the current sample produced elevation rates of 41% and 92% with the same cutoffs. At the highest interpretive cutoffs (80T for L-r and 70T for K-r), the normative sample produced elevation rates of 16% and 11%, and the current sample produced elevation rates of 33% and 67%. The elevation rates in this sample were also meaningfully higher than the Police Candidate comparison group. At the lowest interpretive cutoffs, the comparison group yielded an L-r elevation rate of 33% (8 percentage points lower than the current sample) and a K-r elevation rate of 67% (25 percentage points lower), and at the highest cutoffs the comparison group had elevation rates of 10% and 18% (2 and 26 percentage points lower than the current sample, respectively).

Table 2.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form Underreporting Validity Scale Comparison.

Scale	MMPI-2-RF normative sample (men; n = 1,138)		Police candidate comparison group (men; n = 1,037)		Portland Police Bureau male officers (n = 136)
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r)	50	10	41	7	38	5
True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r)	50	10	52F	6	53	4
Infrequent Responses (F-r)	50	10	44	4	43	2
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses (Fp-r)	50	10	45	5	43	3
Infrequent Somatic Complaints (Fs)	50	10	45	6	43	3
Symptom Validity (FBS-r)	50	10	46	6	48	5
Response Bias Scale (RBS)	50	10	47	7	47	6
Uncommon Virtues (L-r)	50	10	60	14	61	13
Adjustment Validity (K-r)	50	10	64	8	68	5

Average substantive scale scores were meaningfully lower (by 5 T score points or more) than mean normative sample scores (50T for all) on nearly every substantive scale. The exceptions were Juvenile Conduct Problems, Interpersonal Passivity, Social Avoidance, Mechanical/Physical Interests, Aggressiveness, Disconstraint, and Introversion (see Tables 3 -5). The current sample also produced lower scores than the Police Candidate comparison group for most scales, though they only differed meaningfully on Cynicism and Activation, on which the current sample scored 5 T score points lower than the Police Candidate comparison sample. Also depicted in Tables 3 to 5, the current sample additionally produced less variance on substantive scale scores than did the normative sample, for which the standard deviation is set at 10T, by definition.

Table 3.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form Higher-Order, Restructured Clinical, and Somatic-Cognitive Specific Problems Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Portland Police Bureau Selection Validation Survey Criteria (n = 136 Male Officers).

	Higher Order			Restructured Clinical									Somatic/Cognitive
	EID	THD	BXD	RCd	RC1	RC2	RC3	RC4	RC6	RC7	RC8	RC9	MLS	HPC	NUC	COG
CG mean T score	36	44	46	40	42	41	44	45	46	38	44	43	42	43	46	43
SD	6	7	7	5	6	6	9	7	7	6	7	8	6	5	7	6
PPB sample mean T score	34	41	44	38	40	41	39	43	44	36	41	39	41	42	44	41
SD	4	4	6	3	4	6	6	6	5	4	4	6	5	3	6	3
Emotional Control and Stress Problems Domain
Tactical Skills: Stress Conditions	.02(.04)	.06(.15)	−.09(−.15)	−.05(−.16)	.12(.26)	−.05(−.08)	.00(.01)	−.07(−.13)	.09(.20)	−.08(−.22)	−.07(−.17)	−.10(−.15)	.01(.02)	−.17*(−.49)	.13(.22)	.14(.39)
Decision-Making Problems: Stress Conditions	−.05(−.11)	−.11(−.28)	−.03(−.05)	.00 (−.01)	.09(.19)	−.10(−.16)	−.11(−.20)	−.09(−.15)	.02(.05)	−.02(−.06)	−.09(−.20)	−.06(−.09)	−.03(−.07)	−.09(−.28)	.06(.10)	.06(.18)
Learning Problems: Stress Conditions	.05(.12)	.01(.04)	.01(.02)	.04(.15)	.00(.00)	.08(.13)	−.09(−.15)	.07(.11)	−.03(−.06)	.04(.10)	−.01(−.02)	−.12(−.20)	−.01(−.03)	−.06(−.20)	.08(.15)	.03(.09)
Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	.23**(.50)	−.08(−.20)	−.11(−.19)	.14(.46)	.21*(.44)	.00(.01)	.10(.18)	−.04(−.08)	−.07(−.15)	.17*(.42)	−.09(−.20)	.06(.10)	.05(.11)	−.04(−.14)	.14(.24)	.12(.34)
Routine Task Performance Problems Domain
Report Writing Problems	.03(.09)	.03(.08)	−.01(−.02)	.11(.36)	.15(.32)	−.03(−.05)	.09(.15)	.07(.12)	.09(.20)	−.07(−.19)	−.05(−.13)	.02(.03)	.07(.14)	−.03(−.10)	.09(.16)	.08(.24)
Tactical Skills: Normal Conditions	.08(.21)	−.03(−.07)	−.05(−.09)	.11(.37)	−.01(−.02)	.03(.06)	.10(.18)	−.10(−.18)	−.02(−.05)	−.02(−.05)	−.06(−.15)	.00(.00)	.09(.19)	.01(.05)	−.05(−.09)	.10(.27)
Learning Problems: Normal Conditions	.19*(.43)	.03(.08)	.07(.12)	.13(.44)	.20*(.42)	.10(.17)	.06(.11)	.07(.13)	.15(.32)	.04(.12)	−.07(−.17)	.04(.06)	.00(.01)	.14(.42)	.04(.07)	−.01(−.02)
Academic/Learning Problems	.23**(.50)	.12(.30)	.09(.15)	.09(.30)	.13(.29)	.16(.26)	.01(.02)	.07(.13)	.16(.35)	.03(.09)	.02(.05)	.06(.10)	.00 (−.01)	.13(.38)	.06(.11)	−.05(−.14)
Driving Problems	.09(.22)	−.17*(−.41)	−.05(−.09)	.08(.27)	.02(.04)	.00(.00)	.05(.09)	−.07(−.12)	.09(.19)	.06(.16)	−.19*(−.42)	−.03(−.05)	.09(.19)	−.10(−.32)	−.06(−.11)	.06(.18)
Navigational Problems	.06(.15)	−.02(−.04)	−.10(−.17)	.12(.39)	.12(.26)	−.12(−.19)	.02(.03)	−.02(−.03)	.14(.31)	.05(.13)	−.19*(−.42)	−.06(−.09)	−.02(−.05)	.04(.12)	.02(.04)	.09(.25)
Radio Problems	.24**(.52)	.12(.30)	−.05(−.09)	.13(.43)	.10(.22)	.10(.16)	.10(.17)	−.04(−.07)	.07(.17)	−.05(−.12)	.04(.09)	.01(.01)	−.01(−.01)	−.02(−.06)	.12(.22)	.18*(.48)
Decision Making and Judgment Problems Domain
Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	.19*(.43)	−.01(−.01)	.05(.08)	.15(.47)	.10(.23)	.00(.00)	.02(.04)	.00(.00)	−.06(−.14)	.09(.22)	−.04(−.09)	.09(.14)	.18*(.36)	−.03(−.10)	−.08(−.14)	.22*(.55)
Multitasking Problems: Normal Conditions	.18*(.41)	−.05(−.13)	−.09(−.15)	.14(.44)	−.01(−.03)	.16(.26)	−.05(−.09)	−.08(−.14)	−.04(−.10)	.07(.19)	−.09(−.22)	−.07(−.10)	.07(.14)	−.08(−.24)	−.01(−.01)	.15(.40)
Multitasking Problems: Stress Conditions	.16(.37)	−.04(−.11)	−.07(−.11)	.15(.48)	−.08(−.18)	.13(.21)	.03(.06)	−.06(−.11)	.01(.02)	.06(.15)	−.12(−.27)	−.13(−.20)	.14(.29)	−.13(−.40)	−.06(−.11)	.20*(.52)
Feedback Acceptance Problems Domain
Does Not Take Responsibility	.04(.10)	−.05(−.13)	−.01(−.01)	.02(.07)	.00(.00)	−.06(−.10)	−.07(−.12)	−.09(−.15)	−.04(−.10)	−.08(−.21)	−.06(−.14)	−.05(−.08)	.03(.07)	−.03(−.09)	−.07(−.12)	−.05(.15)
Failure to Accept Feedback	.12(.28)	−.06(−.16)	.08(.14)	.12(.39)	−.12(−.27)	.10(.17)	−.01(−.01)	−.03(−.05)	.06(.13)	−.01(−.02)	−.07(−.17)	.09(.14)	.11(.24)	−.04(−.11)	.01(.03)	.06(.17)
Assertiveness Problems Domain
Failure to Control Conflict	.14(.33)	−.03(−.08)	−.07(−.12)	.11(.36)	.04(.09)	.06(.10)	−.02(−.03)	−.03(−.06)	−.03(−.06)	.07(.19)	−.07(−.15)	−.06(−.10)	−.08(−.17)	−.11(−.35)	.08(.13)	.18*(.48)
Failure to Engage Subjects	.06(.15)	.09(.24)	−.22*(−.36)	.05(.19)	.07(.15)	.07(.12)	−.02(−.04)	−.09(−.15)	−.03(−.08)	.06(.16)	.06(.15)	−.19*(−.30)	−.10(−.20)	−.08(−.24)	.03(.05)	−.05(−.15)
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	.17(.39)	.00(.01)	−.08(−.14)	.06(.20)	.00(.00)	.12(.19)	.01(.01)	.00(.00)	−.02(−.04)	.11(.28)	−.03(−.06)	−.08(−.13)	−.01(−.02)	−.08(−.27)	.03(.06)	.25**(.61)
Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Domain
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Stress Conditions	.01(.03)	.03(.07)	−.04(−.07)	−.01(−.02)	.02(.04)	−.01(−.02)	.01(.01)	.06(.10)	.00(.00)	−.03(−.08)	.00(.00)	−.07(−.10)	−.08(−.17)	−.08(−.24)	−.03(−.05)	.05(.14)
Interpersonal Problems: Normal Conditions	.07(.17)	−.07(−.18)	.03(.04)	−.08(−.26)	−.03(−.06)	.01(.01)	.03(.05)	.02(.04)	.06(.13)	.07(.19)	.01(.03)	.01(.01)	.15(.30)	.12(.35)	.01(.01)	.07(.21)
Interpersonal Problems: Stress Conditions	.10(.25)	−.07(−.18)	−.09(−.16)	.01(.02)	.03(.06)	−.03(−.05)	.08(.13)	−.07(−.13)	.04(.09)	.01(.03)	−.08(−.19)	−.05(−.08)	.08(.17)	−.04(−.13)	.08(.14)	−.07(−.21)
Uncooperative Toward Peers	.06(.15)	−.05(−.14)	.02(.04)	.15(.49)	.04(.08)	.04(.06)	−.06(−.10)	.00(.00)	−.05(−.10)	.02(.05)	−.06(−.14)	.07(.11)	.08(.16)	−.03(−.10)	−.07(−.13)	−.06(−.16)
Teamwork	.15(.34)	−.08(−.20)	−.08(−.13)	.07(.23)	.00(.00)	.03(.05)	.10(.18)	−.02(−.04)	−.07(−.15)	.02(.07)	−.09(−.20)	.00(.00)	.11(.23)	−.04(−.14)	−.02(−.04)	−.08(−.23)
Integrity Problems Domain
Integrity	.02(.05)	−.04(−.11)	−.08(−.13)	−.05(−.16)	−.14(−.30)	.11(.18)	−.07(−.11)	.00(.00)	−.04(−.08)	−.07(−.17)	−.05(−.11)	−.13(−.21)	.06(.13)	−.02(−.08)	.03(.05)	−.04(−.12)
Conscientious and Commitment Problems Domain
Initiative and Drive	.19*(.43)	.08(.20)	.02(.03)	−.01(−.04)	.06(.14)	.13(.21)	.14(.24)	−.02(−.04)	−.02(−.04)	−.04(−.10)	.04(.09)	.09(.14)	.23**(.45)	.11(.33)	−.01(−.01)	.06(.17)
Commitment	.14(.32)	.10(.26)	−.03(−.05)	.01(.02)	−.07(−.16)	.18*(.29)	.01(.01)	.06(.11)	−.05(−.11)	.01(.02)	.08(.20)	−.05(−.08)	.12(.25)	−.03(−.11)	.07(.12)	−.06(−.18)
Conscientiousness	.07(.17)	.02(.06)	−.08(−.14)	−.05(−.19)	−.12(−.27)	.17*(.28)	.03(.06)	−.05(−.08)	−.02(−.04)	−.03(−.07)	.00(.01)	−.06(−.09)	.04(.09)	−.06(−.18)	−.02(−.03)	−.10(−.28)
Global Problems
Failed Probation	.14(.34)	−.07(−.18)	−.08(−.14)	.08(.28)	.02(.05)	−.08(−.13)	.03(.05)	−.01(−.01)	−.06(−.13)	−.04(−.10)	−.08(−.20)	−.04(−.07)	.10(.20)	−.04(−.13)	.08(.14)	−.08(−.23)
Adverse Departure	.14(.33)	.06(.16)	−.14(−.23)	−.04(−.15)	−.02(−.05)	.09(.15)	.05(.09)	−.11(−.19)	−.01(−.01)	−.03(−.08)	.04(.09)	−.11(−.17)	.04(.08)	−.05(−.18)	.07(.12)	−.10(−.27)
Poor Overall Rating	.20*(.45)	.00(.01)	−.09(−.16)	.12(.39)	.06(.14)	.08(.14)	.05(.08)	−.11(−.18)	.02(.05)	−.06(−.16)	−.03(−.08)	−.01(−.02)	.16(.32)	.06(.18)	−.04(−.07)	.01(.04)
Would Not Rehire	.19*(.43)	.02(.05)	−.10(−.18)	.10(.34)	.07(.15)	.05(.09)	.03(.06)	−.10(−.18)	.00(.01)	−.05(−.13)	−.01(−.01)	−.01(−.01)	.04(.09)	.02(.07)	.00(.01)	−.02(−.06)

Note. Statistically significant correlations reaching an effect size of ≥.15 are bolded. CG = comparision group; PPB = Portland Police Bureau; EID = Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction; THD = Thought Dysfunction; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction; RCd = Demoralization; RC1 = Somatic Complaints; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; RC3 = Cynicism; RC4 = Antisocial Behavior; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; RC8 = Aberrant Experiences; RC9 = Hypomanic Activation; MLS = Malaise; HPC = Head Pain Complaints; NUC = Neurological Complaints; COG = Cognitive Complaints.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form Internalizing and Externalizing Specific Problem Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Portland Police Bureau Selection Validation Survey Criteria (n = 136 Male Officers).

	Internalizing								Externalizing
	HLP	SFD	NFC	STW	AXY	ANP	BRF	MSF	JCP	SUB	AGG	ACT
CG mean T score	42	43	41	41	45	40	44	43	49	45	42	44
SD	4	4	6	6	4	5	4	6	9	6	7	9
PPB mean T score	41	42	39	39	45	39	44	41	47	44	40	39
SD	2	2	4	5	3	2	3	5	8	5	5	7
Emotional Control and Stress Problems Domain
Tactical skills: Stress Conditions	.03 (.13)	−.10 (−.45)	−.11 (−.25)	−.03 (−.07)	−.06 (−.22)	.00(.02)	−.13 (−.40)	−.04 (−.08)	−.10 (−.13)	.03 (.05)	−.15 (−.30)	−.12 (−.18)
Decision-Making Problems: Stress Conditions	.09 (.35)	−.05 (−.25)	−.03 (−.07)	.00 (.00)	.04 (.16)	.17* (.64)	−.01 (−.04)	.00 (−.01)	−.04 (−.05)	−.01 (−.01)	−.03 (−.06)	−.02 (.03)
Learning Problems: Stress Conditions	−.06 (−.24)	−.04 (−.18)	−.02 (−.04)	.00 (.00)	−.05 (−.20)	.16 (.62)	−.07 (−.24)	.02 (.03)	.03 (.04)	.13 (.24)	−.05 (−.10)	−.10 (−.14)
Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	−.04 (−.17)	−.02 (−.13)	.12 (.27)	.19* (.39)	−.04 (−.14)	.11 (.48)	−.05 (−.17)	.11 (.21)	−.12 (−.16)	.09 (.17)	.08 (.16)	.24** (.34)
Routine Task Performance Problems Domain
Report Writing Problems	.06 (.26)	−.07 (−.34)	−.05 (−.12)	−.07 (−.16)	−.05 (−.19)	.03 (.13)	.03 (.09)	−.07 (−.15)	.02 (.02)	−.03 (−.06)	−.16 (−.31)	−.02 (−.04)
Tactical Skills: Normal Conditions	.11 (.43)	.03 (.15)	.08 (.19)	−.07 (−.15)	.07 (.27)	.02 (.08)	.08 (.27)	−.07 (−.14)	−.04 (−.05)	−.04 (−.07)	−.04 (−.09)	−.12 (−.18)
Learning Problems: Normal Conditions	.06 (.25)	.11 (.51)	.06 (.13)	.10 (.22)	−.09 (−.32)	−.04 (−.18)	−.04 (−.12)	−.12 (−.23)	.07 (.09)	.10 (.19)	.10 (.20)	.05 (.07)
Academic/Learning Problems	.05 (.21)	.10 (.46)	.10 (.23)	.14 (.30)	−.08 (−.30)	.08(.38)	−.10 (−.31)	−.03 (−.05)	.04 (.05)	.10 (.19)	.12 (.25)	.05 (.08)
Driving Problems	−.08 (−.34)	−.02 (−.09)	−.07 (−.17)	.06 (.13)	−.13 (−.46)	−.05 (−.26)	.07 (.23)	−.03 (−.07)	−.13 (−.16)	−.06 (−.11)	−.05 (−.10)	.00 (.00)
Navigational Problems	.02 (.10)	.05 (.27)	.09 (.21)	.02 (.04)	−.01 (−.03)	.11 (.47)	−.10 (−.31)	−.01 (−.02)	.01 (.01)	−.02 (−.05)	−.04 (−.08)	.01 (.01)
Radio Problems	.07 (.30)	.08 (.39)	−.05 (−.11)	.17 (.35)	−.12 (−.41)	.04 (.20)	−.02 (−.07)	−.14 (−.27)	−.12 (−.15)	.08 (.16)	.00 (.01)	.04 (.06)
Decision Making and Judgment Problems Domain
Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	.13 (.50)	−.06 (−.29)	.11 (.26)	.04 (.09)	.02 (.07)	.13 (.53)	−.04 (−.12)	.07 (.13)	−.03 (−.04)	.10 (.19)	.13 (.25)	−.04 (−.06)
Multitasking Problems: Normal Conditions	.14 (.52)	−.08 (−.37)	−.04 (−.09)	.05 (.12)	−.02 (−.09)	−.02 (−.07)	−.02 (−.05)	−.06 (−.12)	−.10 (−.13)	−.05 (−.10)	.01 (.02)	−.08 (−.12)
Multitasking Problems: Stress Conditions	.01 (.06)	−.08 (−.36)	−.09 (−.20)	.05 (.11)	−.02 (−.07)	−.01 (−.04)	−.01 (−.03)	.08 (.16)	−.02 (−.03)	.00 (−.01)	−.10 (−.21)	−.04 (−.06)
Feedback Acceptance Problems Domain
Does Not Take Responsibility	−.03 (−.11)	−.02 (−.08)	−.04 (−.10)	.02 (.04)	−.02 (−.09)	−.03 (−.16)	−.03 (−.11)	−.14 (−.27)	−.11 (−.14)	−.10 (−.19)	.00 (−.01)	−.12 (−.17)
Failure to Accept Feedback	.15 (.55)	−.02 (−.10)	.01 (.03)	.09 (.19)	−.03 (−.11)	−.04 (−.19)	−.04 (−.13)	.02(.04)	−.08 (−.11)	.02 (.04)	.20* (.38)	−.11 (−.16)
Assertiveness Problems Domain
Failure to Control Conflict	−.04 (−.19)	−.06 (−.31)	−.07 (−.16)	.15 (.33)	−.10 (−.35)	.00 (−.02)	−.07 (.22)	−.04 (−.08)	−.13 (−.17)	.05 (.10)	−.06 (−.13)	.06 (.09)
Failure to Engage Subjects	−.07 (−.29)	−.04 (−.22)	−.02 (−.05)	.10 (.21)	−.07 (−.24)	.13 (.52)	−.02 (−.06)	.03 (.07)	−.03 (−.04)	−.10 (−.20)	−.09 (−.18)	.03 (.05)
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	−.08 (−.31)	−.05 (−.24)	.00 (.01)	.15 (.31)	−.07 (−.26)	.00 (−.01)	.00 (−.01)	−.07 (−.15)	−.10 (−.13)	.02 (.04)	−.11 (−.22)	.03 (.04)
Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Domain
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Stress Conditions	.21* (.68)	−.04 (−.22)	−.12 (−.28)	.07 (.14)	−.07 (−.24)	.11 (.48)	−.09 (−.28)	.02 (.05)	.02 (.02)	−.04 (−.08)	−.06 (−.12)	.03 (.05)
Interpersonal problems: Normal conditions	−.04 (−.15)	−.02 (−.12)	.10 (.23)	.00 (−.01)	−.03 (−.13)	−.05 (−.22)	−.05 (−.15)	.02 (.03)	−.10 (−.13)	.06 (.11)	−.02 (−.05)	−.01 (−.01)
Interpersonal Problems: Stress Conditions	−.04 (−.15)	−.02 (−.12)	.04 (.10)	.05 (.12)	−.03 (−.13)	.13 (.54)	−.05 (−.15)	−.02 (−.04)	−.10 (−.13)	−.01 (−.01)	−.02 (−.05)	.05 (.08)
Uncooperative Toward Peers	.18* (.62)	−.02 (−.09)	.05 (.11)	.06 (.12)	−.03 (−.10)	−.03 (−.17)	−.03 (−.12)	−.10 (−.20)	−.06 (−.07)	.06 (.12)	.33*** (.58)	−.13 (−.18)
Teamwork	.11 (.43)	−.03 (−.13)	.01 (.03)	.13 (.28)	−.04 (−.14)	.11 (.48)	−.05 (−.17)	.07 (.15)	−.04 (−.05)	.03 (.06)	.13 (.26)	−.01 (−.02)
Integrity Problems Domain
Integrity	−.02 (−.09)	−.01 (−.07)	−.14 (−.31)	−.01 (−.03)	−.02 (−.08)	−.03 (−.13)	−.03 (−.09)	−.08 (−.16)	−.04 (−.06)	.05 (.09)	−.05 (−.10)	−.10 (−.14)
Conscientious and Commitment Problems Domain
Initiative and Drive	.13 (.49)	.13 (.55)	−.06 (−.14)	.00 (.00)	−.09 (−.33)	.04 (.20)	−.12 (−.38)	−.09 (−.19)	−.09 (−.11)	.05 (.11)	−.03 (−.05)	−.05 (−.08)
Commitment	.11 (.42)	−.02 (−.10)	−.11 (−.25)	.05 (.10)	−.03 (−.11)	−.04 (−.18)	−.04 (−.13)	.01 (.03)	.03 (.03)	.05 (.09)	.14 (.27)	−.09 (−.13)
Conscientiousness	.05 (.22)	−.03 (−.16)	−.15 (−.33)	.09 (.20)	−.05 (−.18)	−.06 (−.29)	−.06 (−.21)	−.09 (−.18)	−.04 (−.05)	−.06 (−.13)	.04 (.08)	−.01 (−.02)
Adverse Separation Domain
Failed Probation	−.04 (−.17)	−.02 (−.13)	−.08 (−.18)	.11 (.24)	−.04 (−.14)	.13 (.53)	−.05 (−.15)	−.16 (−.32)	−.11 (−.14)	.07 (.13)	−.03 (−.06)	.02 (.02)
Adverse Departure	−.05 (−.21)	−.03 (−.16)	−.04 (−.10)	.12 (.27)	−.05 (−.17)	.09 (.39)	−.06 (−.20)	−.07 (−.15)	−.13 (−.17)	−.09 (−.17)	−.07 (−.13)	.02 (.03)
Poor Overall Rating	.07 (.28)	.00 (.02)	.02 (.04)	.10 (.22)	−.18* (.57)	.03 (.15)	−.07 (−.22)	−.12 (−.24)	−.17* (−.22)	.01 (.03)	.00 (.00)	−.05 (−.08)
Would Not Rehire	−.01 (−.04)	−.02 (−.13)	−.02 (−.05)	.15 (.32)	−.15 (−.50)	.06 (.27)	−.07 (−.23)	−.10 (−.20)	−.14 (−.18)	−.01 (−.02)	.03 (.07)	.00 (.00)

Note. Statistically significant correlations reaching an effect size of ≥.15 are bolded. PPB = Portland Police Bureau; HLP = Helplessness/Hopelessness; SFD = Self-Doubt; NFC = Inefficacy; STW = Stress/Worry; ANX = Anxiety; ANP = Anger Proneness; BRF = Behavior-Restricting Fears; MSF = Multiple Specific Fears; JCP = Juvenile Conduct Problems; SUB = Substance Abuse; AGG = Aggression; ACT = Activation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form Interpersonal Functioning Specific Problem Scales and Personality–Psychopathology–5 Scales Correlations (Disattenuated) With Portland Police Bureau Selection Validation Survey Criteria (n = 136 Male Officers).

	Interpersonal					Personality–Psychopathology–5
	FML	IPP	SAV	SHY	DSF	AGGR-r	PSYC-r	DISC-r	NEGE-r	INTR-r
CG mean T score	41	46	47	41	46	51	44	52	39	47
SD	6	7	8	6	5	7	7	7	6	7
PPB sample mean T score	40	48	46	39	45	49	40	50	36	49
SD	5	6	6	4	3	6	4	6	4	6
Emotional Control and Stress Problems Domain
Tactical Skills: Stress Conditions	.02 (.04)	−.07 (−.11)	−.03 (−.06)	−.11 (−.23)	.07 (.22)	.07 (.12)	.20* (.47)	−.06 (−.10)	−.09 (−.20)	−.04 (−.06)
Decision-Making Problems: Stress Conditions	.01 (.01)	−.16 (−.25)	−.12 (−.20)	−.02 (−.03)	−.10 (−.31)	.15 (.25)	−.01 (−.03)	−.03 (−.05)	−.11 (−.24)	−.06 (−.10)
Learning Problems: Stress Conditions	−.02 (−.05)	−.14 (−.22)	.08 (.14)	.12 (.26)	.04 (.14)	.12 (.21)	.01 (.04)	.00 (−.01)	−.07 (−.15)	.16 (.26)
Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	.08 (.16)	−.16 (−.25)	−.06 (−.11)	.03 (.07)	−.05 (−.16)	.06 (.11)	−.07 (−.19)	−.09 (−.15)	.14 (.31)	−.13 (−.22)
Routine Task Performance Problems Domain
Report Writing Problems	.03 (.05)	−.07 (−.11)	−.07 (−.12)	−.03 (−.07)	.03 (.08)	.03 (.06)	.03 (.08)	.02 (.03)	−.09 (−.20)	−.08 (−.13)
Tactical Skills: Normal Conditions	.03 (.05)	−.02 (−.03)	.07 (.13)	.09 (.20)	.02 (.05)	.02 (.04)	.08 (.20)	−.02 (−.03)	−.07 (−.17)	.07 (.12)
Learning Problems: Normal Conditions	.10 (.20)	−.07 (−.11)	.13 (.23)	.14 (.31)	.10 (.30)	.11 (.19)	−.04 (−.10)	.10 (.16)	.08 (.19)	.11 (.19)
Academic/Learning Problems	.10 (.20)	−.08 (−.12)	.16 (.28)	.16 (.33)	.08 (.26)	.12 (.20)	.05 (.13)	.09 (.14)	.10 (.22)	.14 (.24)
Driving Problems	−.05 (−.09)	−.17* (−.26)	.03 (.05)	−.05 (−.12)	−.12 (−.35)	.10 (.18)	−.17 (−.40)	−.04 (−.07)	.02 (.06)	.05 (.08)
Navigational Problems	.17 (.32)	−.08 (−.12)	−.10 (−.18)	.06 (.14)	−.03 (−.09)	.09 (.16)	.02 (.05)	−.07 (−.11)	−.02 (−.04)	−.09 (−.16)
Radio Problems	.03 (.07)	−.08 (−.13)	.08 (.14)	.10 (.21)	.04 (.13)	.10 (.17)	.15 (.36)	−.01 (−.01)	.08 (.18)	.07 (.13)
Decision Making and Judgment Problems Domain
Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	.13 (.25)	−.17 (−.26)	−.04 (−.07)	.20* (.42)	−.04 (−.12)	.15 (.25)	.04 (.10)	.02 (.04)	.00 (.00)	−.04 (−.06)
Multitasking Problems: Normal Conditions	.07 (.14)	.10 (.16)	.03 (.05)	.11 (.25)	−.02 (−.05)	−.13 (−.23)	.06 (.16)	−.07 (−.12)	.07 (.15)	.10 (.17)
Multitasking Problems: Stress Conditions	−.07 (−.13)	.04 (.06)	.06 (.11)	.11 (.24)	.14 (.40)	−.04 (−.07)	.00 (.00)	−.08 (−.13)	.04 (.09)	.09 (.15)
Feedback Acceptance Problems Domain
Does Not Take Responsibility	−.04 (−.07)	−.02 (−.03)	−.02 (−.03)	.07 (.15)	−.03 (−.10)	.04 (.06)	−.05 (−.12)	.04 (.07)	−.04 (−.09)	.02 (.03)
Failure to Accept Feedback	.00 (.01)	−.07 (−.11)	.11 (.19)	.14 (.31)	−.04 (−.13)	.13 (.23)	−.06 (−.15)	.11 (.18)	.12 (.28)	.14 (.24)
Assertiveness Problems Domain
Failure to Control Conflict	−.05 (−.10)	.03 (.05)	.07 (.13)	.14 (.30)	.18* (.51)	−.05 (−.09)	.04 (.09)	−.07 (−.11)	.10 (.22)	.04 (.06)
Failure to Engage Subjects	−.01 (−.02)	−.07 (−.11)	.16 (.27)	.16 (.35)	.27** (.67)	.03 (.06)	.09 (.23)	−.25** (−.40)	.03 (.07)	.15 (.25)
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	.01 (.01)	.12 (.19)	.08 (.14)	.17* (.36)	.19* (.53)	−.11 (−.20)	.05 (.13)	−.07 (−.11)	.05 (.11)	.06 (.10)
Social Competence and Teamwork Problems Domain
Assertiveness/Control Problems: Stress Conditions	−.01 (−.01)	−.15 (−.23)	−.02 (−.04)	.07 (.16)	.21* (.57)	.12 (.21)	.08 (.20)	−.09 (−.15)	.03 (.06)	−.05 (−.09)
Interpersonal Problems: Normal Conditions	−.02 (−.04)	.02 (.03)	.01 (.03)	.00 (.01)	−.05 (−.14)	−.02 (−.04)	−.07 (−.17)	.04 (.07)	−.04 (−.09)	−.02 (−.04)
Interpersonal Problems: Stress Conditions	−.02 (−.04)	−.19* (−.29)	−.10 (−.18)	−.05 (−.11)	−.05 (−.14)	.15 (.26)	−.07 (−.17)	−.10 (−.16)	−.04 (−.09)	−.08 (−.13)
Uncooperative Toward Peers	−.02 (−.05)	.05 (.07)	.09 (.15)	.12 (.27)	−.03 (−.11)	.06 (.10)	−.05 (−.13)	−.03 (−.05)	.10 (.22)	.08 (.14)
Teamwork	−.08 (−.15)	−.20* (−.31)	.04 (.08)	.03 (.07)	−.05 (−.16)	.19* (.32)	−.07 (−.19)	−.11 (−.19)	.08 (.18)	.02 (.04)
Integrity Problems Domain
Integrity	−.10 (−.20)	.08 (.13)	.07 (.12)	−.06 (−.14)	−.03 (−.09)	−.05 (−.09)	−.04 (−.10)	−.11 (−.18)	−.05 (−.11)	.13 (.23)
Conscientious and Commitment Problems Domain
Initiative and Drive	.06 (.11)	−.07 (−.12)	.09 (.16)	.09 (.20)	.04 (.13)	.03 (.06)	.16 (.38)	.02 (.04)	.02 (.04)	.06 (.10)
Commitment	−.09 (−.17)	.05 (.08)	.14 (.23)	.09 (.20)	.11 (.34)	−.04 (−.07)	.10 (.24)	−.08 (−.14)	.10 (.22)	.16 (.27)
Conscientiousness	−.12 (−.23)	.01 (.02)	.19* (.32)	.09 (.20)	.16 (.46)	−.02 (−.04)	.08 (.20)	−.12 (−.21)	.07 (.16)	.15 (.26)
Adverse Separation Domain
Failed Probation	−.06 (−.12)	−.02 (−.03)	−.07 (−.12)	.00 (.00)	−.05 (−.15)	.03 (.05)	−.07 (−.18)	−.09 (−.15)	−.01 (−.02)	−.11 (−.18)
Adverse Departure	−.01 (−.01)	−.12 (−.19)	.07 (.12)	.10 (.22)	.07 (.22)	.09 (.15)	.06 (.15)	−.12 (−.21)	.02 (.04)	.09 (.16)
Poor Overall Rating	.06 (.12)	−.09 (−.13)	.02 (.04)	.10 (.23)	.00 (−.01)	.08 (.15)	.05 (.14)	−.10 (−.17)	.07 (.16)	.06 (.10)
Would Not Rehire	.02 (.04)	−.07 (−.11)	−.02 (−.04)	.11 (.25)	.02 (.08)	.10 (.17)	.04 (.09)	−.14 (−.23)	.07 (.15)	.02 (.03)

Note. Statistically significant correlations reaching an effect size of ≥.15 are bolded. CG = comparison group; PPB = Portland Police Bureau; FML = Family Problems; IPP = Interpersonal Passivity; SAV = Social Avoidance; SHY = Shyness; DSF = Disaffiliativeness; AEC = Aesthetic-Literary Interests; MEC = Mechanical-Physical Interests; AGGR-r = Aggressiveness-Revised; PSYC-r = Psychoticism-Revised; DISC-r = Disconstraint-Revised; NEGE-r = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised; INTR-r = Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Correlations

Zero-order and disattenuated correlations between MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and SVS criteria are presented in Table 3 for the Higher-Order, Restructured Clinical, and Somatic/Cognitive Specific Problem Scales; in Table 4 for the Internalizing and Externalizing Specific Problem Scales; and in Table 5 for the Interpersonal Specific Problem Scales and PSY-5 Scales. To facilitate interpretation, the findings are summarized in reference to each of the five MMPI-2-RF domains:(a) Emotional Dysfunction, (b) Thought Dysfunction, (c) Behavioral Dysfunction, (d) Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and (e) Interpersonal Functioning.

The scales in the Emotional Dysfunction domain include Higher-Order scale Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) and Restructured Clinical scales Demoralization (RCd), Low Positive Emotions (RC2), and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7). This domain also includes the Internalizing Specific Problems Scales, which are Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Self-Doubt (SFD), Inefficacy (NFC), Stress/Worry (STW), Anxiety (AXY), Anger Proneness (ANP), Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF), and Multiple Specific Fears (MSF). Finally, this domain includes PSY-5 Scales Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism–Revised (NEGE-r) and Low Positive Emotionality/Introversion–Revised (INTR-r). Because SUI had no variance, it is not included in the text or tables. Scales in this domain demonstrated moderate disattenuated associations with emotional control and stress problems, including decision making under stress conditions (ANP) and restraint and control problems under stress conditions (EID, RC7, and STW). Moderate disattenuated associations were observed for EID with routine task performance problems, including learning problems under normal conditions, academic/learning problems, and radio problems. This scale also demonstrated moderate disattenuated correlations with decision making and judgment problems, which included decision making and multitasking problems under normal conditions. Emotional Dysfunction scales had moderate disattenuated associations with conscientiousness and commitment problems, including initiative and drive (EID), as well as commitment and conscientiousness (RC2). Finally, EID scores were positively associated with a poor overall supervisor rating and likelihood that the supervisor would not hire a similar candidate, whereas AXY scores were unexpectedly negatively associated with poor overall rating.

The scales in the Thought Dysfunction domain include Higher-Order scale Thought Dysfunction (THD), Restructured Clinical scales Persecutory Ideation (RC6) and Aberrant Experiences (RC8), and PSY-5 Scale Psychoticism–Revised (PSYC-r). PSYC-r scores were positively associated with tactical skills problems under stress conditions, whereas THD and RC8 were unexpectedly negatively associated with driving and navigational problems.

The scales in the Behavioral Dysfunction domain include Higher-Order scale Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD), Restructured Clinical scales Antisocial Behavior (RC4) and Hypomanic Activation (RC9), and the Externalizing Specific Problem Scales Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Substance Abuse (SUB), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT). This domain also includes PSY-5 Scales Aggressiveness–Revised (AGGR-r) and Disconstraint–Revised (DISC-r). ACT scores were positively associated with restraint and control problems under stress conditions and scores on AGG were positively associated with failure to accept feedback. Multiple scales from this domain demonstrated negative associations with failure to engage subjects (BXD, RC9, and DISC-r), indicating that particularly low scores on these measures were associated with problematic performance. Scales from this domain were positively associated with interpersonal problems, including uncooperativeness toward peers (AGG) and teamwork (AGGR-r). Finally, JCP scores were negatively associated with poor overall rating.

The scales in the Somatic/Cognitive Complaints domain include Restructured Clinical Scale Somatic Complaints (RC1) and the Somatic/Cognitive Specific Problem Scales, which are composed of Malaise (MLS), Gastrointestinal Complaints (GIC), Head Pain Complaints (HPC), Neurological Complaints (NUC), and Cognitive Complaints (COG). Scales from this domain demonstrated moderate disattenuated associations with routine task performance problems, including restraint and control problems (RC1) and tactical skills under stress conditions (HPC; negative association). Scales in this domain had modest positive associations with routine task performance problems, including learning problems under normal conditions (RC1) and radio problems (COG). Somatic/Cognitive scales were modestly correlated with decision making and judgment problems (MLS and COG) and multitasking problems under stress conditions (COG). Scores on the COG scale were also associated with assertiveness problems, including failure to control conflict and assertiveness and control problems under normal conditions. Finally, MLS scores were positively correlated with poor initiative and drive.

The scales in the Interpersonal Functioning domain include Restructured Clinical scale Cynicism (RC3) and the Interpersonal Specific Problem Scales, which are composed of Family Problems (FML), Interpersonal Passivity (IPP), Social Avoidance (SAV), Shyness (SHY), and Disaffiliativeness (DSF). The IPP scale was negatively associated with driving problems and SHY was positively associated with decision-making problems under normal conditions. A number of scales demonstrated moderate disattenuated associations with assertiveness problems, including failure to control conflict (DSF), failure to engage subjects (DSF), and assertiveness and control problems under normal conditions (SHY and DSF). DSF scale scores were also associated with assertiveness and control problems under stress conditions. IPP scale scores were negatively associated with interpersonal problems under stress conditions and teamwork. Finally, SAV scores were positively associated with conscientiousness problems.

Relative Risk Ratios

In Table 6, we present all RRRs that met our previously described selection criteria (i.e., those that were associated with statistically significant zero-order correlations of a magnitude r ≥ |.15| and yielded selection ratios ranging from 3.0% to 20%). To assist the reader with interpretation, we provide a description of the RRR for RC1 and restraint and control problems under stress conditions (i.e., the first row of Table 6). The selection ratio (SR) indicates that 10.4% of the sample scored at or above a cutoff of 45T. The base rate (BR) indicates that 4.4% of the sample was determined by supervisors to have restraint and control problems under stress conditions. The risk of having these problems if RC1 is ≥45T is 7.1% and if RC1 is <45T the risk is 4.1%. Dividing the risk if elevated by the risk if not elevated yields a RRR of 1.729. Because the 95% confidence interval for this analysis ranges from 0.217 to 13.761, the finding is not statistically significant (i.e., because the range overlaps with one). Overall, the RRR analyses demonstrated meaningful findings for a variety of scales at cutoffs of 45T and 50T, which yielded selection ratios ranging from 3.0% to 19.3%. For example, a cutoff of 50T on the COG scale yielded a RRR of 2.092, indicating that police officers scoring above this cutoff were at a two times greater risk of multi-tasking problems under stress conditions. Police officers that scored at or below 33T on the BXD scale were at a 2.371 times greater risk of failure to engage subjects problems, demonstrating that low scores on the test may be useful in predicting problem behaviors.

Table 6.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form Significant High Score Relative Risk Ratios With Portland Police Department Selection Validation Survey Criteria (n = 136 Male Officers).

Scale	Cutoff (≥)	SR	BR	Criterion	Risk if elevated	Risk if not elevated	RRR	95% CI
RC1	45T	10.4%	4.4%	Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	7.1%	4.1%	1.729	0.217-13.761
RC1	45T	10.4%	51.1%	Learning Problems: Normal Conditions	64.3%	49.6%	1.296	0.844-1.993
RC2	50T	13.4%	4.5%	Commitment	11.1%	3.4%	3.222	0.636-16.333
RC2*	50T	13.4%	9.0%	Conscientiousness	22.2%	6.9%	3.222	1.080-9.610
RC7	45T	3.0%	4.4%	Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	25.0%	3.8%	6.550	0.977-43.909
MLS	50T	4.4%	20.7%	Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	33.3%	20.2%	1.654	0.507-5.396
MLS	50T	4.4%	21.5%	Initiative and Drive	33.3%	20.9%	1.593	0.489-5.184
COG*	50T	11.9%	58.5%	Radio Problems	87.5%	54.6%	1.602	1.251-2.051
COG*	50T	11.9%	20.7%	Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	43.8%	17.6%	2.479	1.259-4.883
COG*	50T	11.9%	30.4%	Multitasking Problems: Stress Conditions	56.3%	26.9%	2.092	1.239-3.532
COG*	50T	11.9%	25.9%	Failure to Control Conflict	56.3%	21.8%	2.575	1.486-4.461
COG*	50T	11.9%	14.8%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	37.5%	11.8%	3.188	1.430-7.104
HLP*	50T	3.7%	12.6%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Stress Conditions	40.0%	11.5%	3.467	1.071-11.218
HLP*	50T	3.7%	2.2%	Uncooperative Toward Peers	20.0%	1.5%	13.000	1.401-120.667
STW*	45T	6.7%	4.4%	Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	22.2%	3.2%	7.000	1.476-33.207
ANP*	45T	4.4%	16.3%	Decision-Making Problems: Stress Conditions	50.0%	14.7%	3.395	1.378-8.362
AGG	50T	5.2%	3.0%	Failure to Accept Feedback	14.3%	2.3%	6.095	0.723-51.366
AGG	50T	5.2%	2.2%	Uncooperative Toward Peers	14.3%	1.6%	9.143	0.938-89.093
AGG	45T	19.3%	3.0%	Failure to Accept Feedback	3.8%	2.8%	1.397	0.151-12.897
AGG	45T	19.3%	2.2%	Uncooperative Toward Peers	7.7%	0.9%	8.385	0.790-88.982
ACT*	50T	5.2%	4.4%	Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	28.6%	3.1%	9.143	2.005-41.692
ACT	45T	9.6%	4.4%	Restraint and Control Problems: Stress Conditions	15.4%	3.3%	4.692	0.949-23.198
SAV*	50T	9.7%	9.0%	Conscientiousness	30.8%	6.6%	4.654	1.620-13.367
SHY	50T	3.7%	20.7%	Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	40.0%	20.0%	2.000	0.648-6.174
SHY	50T	3.7%	14.8%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	40.0%	13.8%	2.889	0.909-9.178
SHY	45T	8.1%	20.7%	Decision-Making Problems: Normal Conditions	36.4%	19.4%	1.879	0.795-4.441
SHY*	45T	8.1%	14.8%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	36.4%	12.9%	2.818	1.139-6.971
DSF*	55T	5.2%	25.9%	Failure to Control Conflict	57.1%	24.2%	2.359	1.159-4.804
DSF*	55T	5.2%	14.1%	Failure to Engage Subjects	57.1%	11.7%	4.876	2.194-10.836
DSF*	55T	5.2%	14.8%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Normal Conditions	42.9%	13.3%	3.227	1.232-8.454
DSF*	55T	5.2%	12.6%	Assertiveness/Control Problems: Stress Conditions	42.9%	10.9%	3.918	1.459-10.524
AGGR-r	60T	4.5%	4.5%	Teamwork	16.7%	3.9%	4.267	0.586-31.052
AGGR-r	55T	9.7%	4.5%	Teamwork	7.7%	4.1%	1.862	0.235-14.744
PSYC-r*	45T	11.1%	42.2%	Tactical Skills: Stress Conditions	73.3%	38.3%	1.913	1.308-2.798
BXD	36T⁺	4.4%	14.1%	Failure to Engage Subjects	33.3%	13.2%	2.529	0.750-8.526
BXD*	33T⁺	16.3%	14.1%	Failure to Engage Subjects	27.3%	11.5%	2.371	1.010-5.562
BXD	31T⁺	9.6%	14.1%	Failure to Engage Subjects	30.8%	12.3%	2.503	0.975-6.427

Note. SR = selection ratio; BR = base rate; RRR = relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; MLS = Malaise; COG = Cognitive Complaints; HLP = Helplessness; STW = Stress/Worry; ANP = Anger Proneness; ACT = Activation; SAV = Social Avoidance; SHY = Shyness; DSF = Disaffiliativeness; AGGR = Aggressiveness; PSYC-r = Psychoticism; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction.

Relative risk ratios are significant at an alpha of .05. ⁺≤.

Discussion

We sought to investigate the predictive validity of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales in police candidate screenings. Police officers in this sample produced meaningfully lower and range restricted scores compared with the normative sample and in some cases even when compared with the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate comparison group. As expected, correlations between prehire MMPI-2-RF scores and problem behaviors during probation were attenuated due to range restriction. After applying a correction that disattenuated the correlations, the test demonstrated a number of moderate to strong associations with problem behaviors, providing support for the validity of the MMPI-2-RF in this setting. Correlational findings were augmented by relative risk ratio analyses, which identified MMPI-2-RF scale score cutoffs associated with increased risk for negative outcomes in this police candidate sample.

The current sample scored an average of 10 T score points lower on the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales than the individuals who make up the normative sample, and the average standard deviation in the current sample was approximately half of the normative sample standard deviation. These findings demonstrate that the current sample evidenced significant range restriction. Moreover, the current sample scored an average of approximately two T score points lower than the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate comparison group and the average standard deviation associated with these lower mean scores was approximately two T score points lower as well. Overall, the current sample and comparison group average mean scores are nearly one-half standard deviation apart because of the substantial range restriction in both samples. Because MMPI-2-RF scales were predominately scored from MMPI-2 protocols, these findings may largely be the result of preselection factors discussed next as opposed to selection factors, which would result from the use of psychological tests to determine hireability.

Several factors may have contributed to the extreme range restriction in the study sample. First, the current sample had higher underreporting scale scores and elevation rates on these scales than did the normative sample and Police Candidate comparison group, particularly on K-r. These differences indicate that the current sample may have been more defensive and/or positively adjusted than the others. Better adjustment than the normative sample would be consistent with past research of police officer characteristics relative to the general population (Aamodt, 2004; Visweswaran, Ones, Cullen, Drees, & Langkamp, 2003). Additionally, though the screening process for police officers in general is relatively rigorous, the hiring process varies across states and departments. This process typically includes a variety of preselection factors, such as background and reference checks, employment interviews, civil service exams, and police academy performance, as well as selection factors, including medical exams and psychological evaluations with psychological testing. The process for hiring officers in this department may have been particularly rigorous, yielding a sample of police hires that were exceptionally well adjusted. In addition, the absence of the polygraph may have yielded a population of subjects with higher defensiveness or a greater willingness to deny problems. The preselection and selection factors just mentioned result in range restriction that attenuates effect sizes, which, if left uncorrected, underestimate the predictive validity of prehire test results. Consistent with past studies (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Sellbomet al., 2007), applying a correction for range restriction in the current study yielded substantially stronger effect sizes. Several MMPI-2-RF substantive scales demonstrated statistically significant moderate to strong disattenuated correlations with the criteria.

The predictive validity analyses yielded several interesting findings. Not surprisingly, several Emotional Dysfunction scales showed convergent associations with emotional control and stress problems. The Higher-Order scale EID, which is a broad measure of internalizing psychopathology, demonstrated associations with a number of criteria, including restraint and control problems under stress conditions, learning problems under normal conditions, radio problems, decision making problems under normal conditions, initiative/drive, and multitasking under normal and stress conditions. Moreover, EID demonstrated moderate to strong disattenuated associations with a poor overall rating and low likelihood of hiring a similar candidate. These findings indicate that EID may be particularly useful in the assessment of police officer candidates, as it is associated with global outcome as well as more specific psychological screening dimensions (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 2005).

Among the Interpersonal Functioning scales, the Specific Problems scale Disaffiliativeness (DSF), which assesses a dislike of being around people and a preference to be alone, showed a number of convergent associations with problems in the assertiveness domain. It would indeed be expected that disaffiliative officers would have negative interpersonal interactions with citizens.

The Cognitive Complaints (COG) Scale in the Somatic/Cognitive Complaints domain was associated with a number of SVS-identified problems related to radio operation, multitasking, assertiveness, and failure to control conflict. This scale measures self-reported memory problems and difficulty concentrating. Officers scoring higher on this scale may have more difficulty processing information, both in routine tasks and conflict situations.

Scales in the Behavioral Dysfunction domain demonstrated some negative associations with criteria, indicating that lower scores on these scales are predictive of problem behaviors. These associations were generally limited to failure to engage subjects, indicating that individuals presenting with relatively low energy had difficulty in this task.

Overall, all the MMPI-2-RF domains demonstrated a number of meaningful associations with extra test criteria, with the exception of Thought Dysfunction. This finding is inconsistent with results reported by Sellbomet al. (2007), who found that higher scores on RC6 and RC8 were among the better predictors of negative outcomes in a different police candidate sample. A primary difference between the current sample and the one studied by Sellbom and colleagues is that outcome data for the latter were obtained after officers had already spent several years on the job, whereas the current investigation focused on the initial probationary period of employment. It is possible that peculiarities in the Thought Dysfunction domain (i.e., ones associated with higher scores that are not clinically elevated) do not have an opportunity to manifest during the more structured and closely supervised probationary period. Additional follow-up, after the current sample has been employed for several years, can provide a test of this hypothesis.

Relative risk ratio analyses yielded reasonable selection ratios at cutoffs of 45T and 50T. Lower selection ratios are desirable in this setting, because they decrease the chance of false positive findings. In the current investigation, most selection ratios were 10% or less using these scores. Several meaningful findings were observed at these cutoffs, with some RRRs being particularly strong. For example, the base rate for restraint and control problems under stress conditions was 4.4% in this sample. A total of 5.2% of the sample scored at or above 50T on the Specific Problems scale Activation (ACT). Among those scoring at or above the cutoff, 28.6% were identified as having problems with restraint and control under stress conditions, whereas only 3.1% of those who scored below 50T on ACT were similarly rated. Thus, police candidates who scored 50T or above on ACT were at over a nine times greater risk of being rated as having problems with restraint and control under stress conditions than those who scored below the cutoff.

The standard 65T cutoff used to identify clinically elevated MMPI scores produced no interpretable RRRs in this study. Owing to the preselection and selection factors discussed earlier, virtually none of the participants produced clinically elevated scores. Consistent with Sellbom et al. (2007), our findings indicate that lower cutoffs can and should be used in settings with exceptionally low scores such as this one. However, as noted previously, the current sample produced particularly low, range restricted scores on the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales. The specific cutoffs that yielded the strongest RRRs in the current investigation may not be ideal for other settings. Replication with other samples from a range of departments will assist in identification of the most generalizable cutoffs.

The study has some limitations that warrant discussion. First, our analyses included males because we did not have a sufficiently large sample of females, a study characteristic that limits the generalizability of our results. Second, because the police officers in this sample scored especially low on the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and had low base rates of problem behaviors, RRRs could not be calculated for a number of practically meaningful correlations. Finally, the study sample was relatively small, limiting our power to detect statistically significant effect sizes and RRRs. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings in larger, more diverse samples.

These limitations notwithstanding, the current study is the first to examine use of the full range of MMPI-2-RF scales in predicting problematic police officer job performance. Our results provide empirical support for using the inventory in police officer screenings. They also highlight the need to apply lower cutoffs (than the traditional clinically elevated 65T score) with this population. Finally, our findings demonstrate the need for disattenuation corrections when estimating the predictive validity of police candidates’ prehire MMPI-2-RF scores.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Casey O. Stewart, PsyD, for his contributions to data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI-2-RF publisher, the University of Minnesota Press, and distributor, Pearson Assessments. He receives royalties on sales of MMPI-2-RF materials and research grants from the MMPI-2-RF publisher.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota Press.

References

Aamodt

M. G.

(2004). Research in law enforcement selection. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker.

Anastasi

Urbina

(1997). Psychological testing (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Arbisi

P. A.

Sellbom

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 122-128. doi:10.1080/00223890701845146

Azen

S. P.

Snibbe

H. M.

Montgomery

H. R.

(1973). A longitudinal predictive study of success and performance of law enforcement officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 190-192.

Bartol

C. R.

(1982). Psychological characteristics of small-town police officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10, 58-63.

Bartol

C. R.

(1991). Predictive validation of the MMPI for small-town police officers who fail. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 127-132.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

(2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in mental health, forensic, and nonclinical settings: An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 119-121. doi:10.1080/00223890701845120

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

(2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Blau

Super

J. T.

Brady

(1993). The MMPI good cop/bad cop profile in identifying dysfunctional law enforcement personnel. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 9(1), 2-4.

10.

Boes

J. O.

Chandler

C. J.

Timm

H. W.

(1997). Police integrity: Use of personality measures to identify corruption-prone officers (DTIC document). Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA334097

11.

Bradford

Jackson

Stanko

E. A.

(2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society, 19, 20-46.

12.

Brewster

Stoloff

M. L.

(1999). Using the good cop/bad cop profile with the MMPI-2. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 14(2), 29-34.

13.

Butcher

Graham

J. R.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

Dahlstrom

G. W.

Kaemmer

(2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

14.

California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (2005). Peace officer psychological screening dimensions. Sacramento, CA: Author.

15.

Carpenter

B. N.

Raza

S. M.

(1987). Personality characteristics of police applicants: Comparisons across subgroups and with other populations. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(1), 10-17.

16.

Carr

P. J.

Napolitano

Keating

(2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45, 445-480.

17.

Cattell

R. B.

Eber

(1950). The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

18.

Cochrane

R. E.

Tett

R. P.

Vandecreek

(2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 511-537.

19.

Corey

D. M.

Borum

(2013). Forensic assessment for high risk occupations. In Otto

R. K.

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 246-269). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

20.

Cortina

J. M.

Doherty

M. L.

Kaufman

Smith

R. G.

(1992). The “Big Five” personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: Predictors of police performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 119-140.

21.

Costa

P. T.

MacCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

22.

Forbey

J. D.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2007). A comparison of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and clinical scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4(1), 46-58.

23.

Gough

H. G.

(1956). California psychological inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

24.

Graham

J. R.

(2012). The MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Graham

J. R.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

McNulty

J. L.

(1999). MMPI-2 correlates for outpatient community mental health settings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

26.

Handel

R. W.

Archer

R. P.

(2008). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 239-249. doi:10.1080/00223890701884954

27.

Hiatt

Hargrave

G. E.

(1988). MMPI profiles of problem peace officers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 722-731.

28.

Hoffman

C. C.

(1995). Applying range restriction corrections using published norms: Three case studies. Personnel Psychology, 48, 913-923.

29.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Inwald

Knatz

Shusman

(1982). Inwald Personality Inventory manual. New York, NY: Hilson Research.

31.

Kappeler

V. E.

Kappeler

S. F.

del Carmen

R. V.

(1993). A content analysis of police civil liability cases: Decisions of the Federal District Courts, 1978-1990. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 325-337.

32.

Lowmaster

S. E.

Morey

L. C.

(2012). Predicting law enforcement officer job performance with the Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 254-261.

33.

Mastrofski

S. D.

Reisig

M. D.

McCluskey

J. D.

(2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519-552.

34.

Mazerolle

Bennett

Antrobus

Eggins

(2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 343-367.

35.

McCord

D. M.

Drerup

L. C.

(2011). Relative practical utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Clinical scales versus the clinical scales in a chronic pain patient sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33, 140-146. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.495056

36.

Morey

L. C.

(2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

37.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1973). Task force on police. Washington, DC: Author.

38.

Ones

Viswesvaran

(2003). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for personality scales: Implications for range-restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 570-577.

39.

Ones

Viswesvaran

Cullen

Drees

Langkamp

(2003). Personality and police officer behaviors: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Personality Work Behaviors of Police Officers, Orlando, FL; Symposium conducted at the 18th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

40.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement Administration of Justice. (1967). Task force report: The police. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

41.

Reaves

B. A.

(2010). Local police departments, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

42.

Sackett

P. R.

Ostgaard

D. J.

(1994). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680-684.

43.

Scholte

Tiemens

B. G.

Verheul

Meerman

Egger

Hutschemaekers

(2012). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 clinical, PSY-5, and RC scales for therapy disruptive behavior. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 18, 420-429.

44.

Scogin

Schumacher

Gardner

Chaplin

(1995). Predictive validity of psychological testing in law enforcement settings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 68-71.

45.

Sellbom

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Baum

L. J.

Erez

Gregory

(2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a Batterers’ intervention program. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 129-135. doi:10.1080/00223890701845153

46.

Sellbom

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Graham

J. R.

(2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 88-99.

47.

Sellbom

Fischler

G. L.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985-1004.

48.

Sellbom

Graham

J. R.

Schenk

P. W.

(2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196-205.

49.

Serafino

G. F.

(2010). Fundamental issues in police psychology assessment. In Weiss

P. A.

(Ed.), Personality assessment in police psychology: A 21st century perspective (pp. 29-55). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

50.

Tellegen

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2008/2011). Minnesota Mutliphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

51.

Tellegen

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

McNulty

J. L.

Arbisi

P. A.

Graham

J. R.

Kaemmer

(2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

52.

University of Minnesota Press. (2013). MMPI-2-RF references. Retrieved from http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/MMPI-2-RF/mmpi-2-rf-references

53.

Van der Heijden

P. T.

Egger

J. I.

Derksen

J. J.

(2010). Comparability of scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 254-259. doi:10.1080/00223891003670208

54.

Visweswaran

Ones

Cullen

Drees

Langkamp

(2003, April). Appropriate police officer norms on personality scales. In Spilberg

S. W.

Ones

D. S.

(Chairs), Personality and work behaviors of police officers. Symposium conducted at the 18th annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

55.

Wallace

Liljequist

(2005). A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and clinical scales. Assessment, 12, 290-294.

56.

Weiss

W. U.

Davis

Rostow

Kinsman

(2003). The MMPI-2 L scale as a tool in police selection. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 18(1), 57-60.

57.

Weitzer

(2002). Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 397-408.

58.

Wygant

D. B.

Boutacoff

L. I.

Arbisi

P. A.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Kelly

P. H.

Rupp

W. M.

(2007). Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14, 197-205.