Use of Prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Police Candidate Scores to Predict Supervisor Ratings of Posthire Performance

Abstract

We examined associations between prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores and posthire performance ratings for a sample of 131 male police officers. Substantive scale scores in this sample were meaningfully lower than those obtained by the test's normative sample and substantially range restricted, but scores were consistent with those produced by members of the police candidate comparison group (Corey & Ben-Porath). After applying a statistical correction for range restriction, we found several associations between MMPI-2-RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings of job-related performance. Findings for scales from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains of the test were particularly strong. For example, scales assessing low positive emotions and social avoidance were associated with several criteria that may be affected by lack of engagement with one's environment and other people, including problems with routine task performance, decision making, assertiveness, conscientiousness, and social competence. Implications of these findings for assessment science and practice are discussed.

Examining the Validity of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire in the Assessment of Police Candidates

“…The latter findings may best be understood as a function of preselection effects (e.g., Sellbom et al, 2007), reflecting the likelihood that potential candidates with the most problematic externalizing histories would not have received a conditional offer of employment, and therefore would not have been referred for the preemployment psychological evaluation, at which time the MPQ (along with the two other written tests) was administered and the ratings completed. Similar findings for scales that measure impulsive and externalizing content have been observed for the MMPI-2-RF (e.g., Tarescavage, Brewster, et al, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015, 2016; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al, 2015). Finally, the AB scale did not correlate extensively with biodata problems, but it was meaningfully related to most POST-10 rating domains, indicating significant validity for this scale with respect to suitability prediction.…”

“…To date, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is the only instrument for which documented evidence of relevance to the POST screening dimensions has been published in the peer-reviewed literature (Tarescavage, Brewster, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, Gupton, & Ben-Porath, 2015). No peer-reviewed studies published to date have explicitly linked tests of normal personality to the POST dimensions.…”

Using presurgical psychological testing to predict 1-year appointment adherence and weight loss in bariatric surgery patients: predictive validity and methodological considerations

“…After applying the formula with these values, * the nonrange-restricted correlation is estimated to be -.20, a clinically meaningful effect size. This method of obtaining unbiased validity estimates has been utilized extensively in personnel screening, where range restriction due to underreporting is even more likely to be prevalent [43][44][45].…”

A Prorating Method for Estimating MMPI-2-RF Scores From MMPI Responses

“…In order to facilitate interpretation, the findings are summarized in reference to MMPI-2-RF domains that include (a) Underreporting, (b) Emotional Dysfunction, (c) Thought Dysfunction, (d) Behavioral Dysfunction, (e) Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and (f) Interpersonal Functioning. In keeping with our goal to interpret the findings of this study in the context of exploration, the correlate results and discussion from each domain are structured into three paragraphs: a straightforward description of the findings, a discussion of correlates that converge with the broader research literature (e.g., Tarescavage, Brewster, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2014; Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, Gupton, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al, 2014), and identification of correlates that may be an artifact of Type I error or would need to be replicated before integrating into the literature base.…”