Matrix-Predictive Uniform Law Enforcement Selection Evaluation

Predictive Validity of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 Scales and Facets for Law Enforcement Officer Employment Outcomes

“…The modest predictive effects for the most effective PSY-5 scales and facets in the honest responder (non-impression-management) officer groups were similar in size to effects found in previous law enforcement officer research with existing MMPI-2 measures (O'Brien, 1996;Varela et al, 2004). Although the PSY-5 measures were statistically significant predictors of being forced to leave the agency, they were not meaningful predictors of the types of on-the-job misconduct that are of greatest concern to law enforcement agencies (Davis & Rostow, 2002). In addition, they were significant predictors of being forced to leave the agency only for the subset of officers who do not engage in positive impression management.…”

“…A second limitation of the study is that we have no information about the reliability of the supervisor reports of officer misconduct. Perhaps the most important goal of the employment screening process for law enforcement officers is to identify officers who are at risk for engaging in behaviors that could lead to social or financial liability for the agency (Davis & Rostow, 2002). The failure of the PSY-5 measures to identify officers at risk for misconduct in this study suggests that they may be of only limited utility for law enforcement officer screening.…”

“…Employment status. Matrix requires supervisors in each department with which they have a contract to evaluate the job performance of officers using an evaluation form supplied by Matrix (Davis & Rostow, 2002). Matrix collects this information for the purposes of improving their evaluation procedures.…”

Psychological preemployment screening for police candidates: Seeking consistency if not standardization.

“…Regardless of the individual's label as psychologist, conducting police psychological preemployment screening is important and should be consistent (Davis & Rostow, 2008). It is important to identify what protocols are used in this process (Dantzker & McCoy, 2006).…”

Continuing the pursuit of a standardized psychological evaluation for preemployment police officer candidates: Response to Dr. Detrick's comments (2012).

“…However, what is being discussed and sought is a standardized inquiry into selecting the best possible candidates for policing. To date, the closest available instrument that provides a means of selecting plausible police candidates is the M-PULSE Inventory (Davis & Rostow, 2008; Davis, Rostow, & Williams, 2011). Although I argue for a standardized set of assessment tools, I am most interested in assessment tools not only that allow for selecting police candidates but also that are used consistently, so that no one candidate would be screened out by one psychologist but screened in by another using another assessment tool.…”