A novel approach to examining personality risk factors of sexual offending in clergy applicants.

Abstract

The clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has led to several strategies aimed at preventing future offenses from occurring. The screening of applicants to clergy training programs has become more rigorous and includes a psychological evaluation. The purpose of this article is to examine personality-based risk factors associated with sexual offending in clergy applicants. This study involved evaluation data of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) from 137 male participants who applied to enter a training program for priests or deacons from a mid-Atlantic city in the United States from 2013 to 2019. Analyses included correlations among 16PF global and primary factors with MMPI-2-RF scales. Results indicated significant and clinically meaningful associations in our hypotheses focused on emotional deficits and impulsivity. Combining normative and psychopathological measures in psychological evaluations can be helpful by assessing deficits of normative characteristics and known risk factors in clergy applicants.

Examining admission and formation outcomes for Catholic clergy applicants with the MMPI-2-RF: A prospective study.

“…For example, candidates that were anxious about classwork, angry with authority figures in formation, or fearful of speaking up about sexual harassment may have all left formation after admittance due to emotional dysfunction, but for very different contexts of their emotions. In using the MMPI-2-RF with clergy applicants, one challenge frequently encountered by psychologists is that substantive scale scores are often below traditional recommended cut values and have elevated K-r and L-r scales (T < 65) (see Isacco et al, 2020b). Indeed, respondents in this sample frequently scored around 10 points lower than the normative sample with a standard deviation approximately half that of the normative sample.…”

“…In using the MMPI-2-RF with clergy applicants, one challenge frequently encountered by psychologists is that substantive scale scores are often below traditional recommended cut values and have elevated K-r and L-r scales (T < 65) (see Isacco et al, 2020b). Indeed, respondents in this sample frequently scored around 10 points lower than the normative sample with a standard deviation approximately half that of the normative sample.…”

“…It is suggested that psychologists emphasize the preference for very low scores on RC3 among admitted clergy applicants. Given the lower thresholds and range restriction, the use of additional assessment tools (e.g., a clinical interview) and psychological tests may also be helpful to further identify and clarify the presence of a psychological concern with clergy applicants that may impact admission decisions (Isacco et al, 2020b). A multi-modal approach to psychological evaluations is consistent with Church guidelines (USCCB, 2015) and clinical guidance for robust psychological assessments (Wright, 2011).…”

“…There is some limited research supporting the MMPI-2-RF’s utility within this population and evidence suggests that the general trends observed on the MMPI-2-RF are conceptually consistent with the more established literature on the MMPI-2 (see Plante & Lackey, 2007; Plante et al, 2005). Specifically, clergy applicants on the MMPI-2-RF have a low general level of symptom endorsement that meets recommended cut-scores and a higher frequency of under-reporting scale elevation (Isacco et al, 2020b). This pattern is not only similar to results with clergy applicants on the MMPI-2, but also with other populations undergoing public service employment evaluations where emotional and interpersonal scales are critical for employment determinations (e.g., Corey & Ben-Porath, 2018).…”

Psychological evaluations of clergy applicants in the Catholic Church: Answering frequently asked questions.

“…Overall, these studies suggest that clerical applicants tend to be psychologically healthy individuals as measured primarily by MMPI-2 and RF scores. Clergy applicants also score lower than convicted sexual offenders on most MMPI-2-RF scales that measure risk factors for sexual offending (e.g., Emotional dysfunction, Disaffilativeness, Substance Use, Juvenile Conduct Problems; Isacco, Ingram, et al, 2020). However, there has been a tendency towards intellectualization on subjective measures and the MMPI-2 validity scales often suggest that the person has presented himself as overly virtuous (e.g., Plante et al, 1996Plante et al, , 2005.…”