Expert answer:Controversies in Industrial and Organizational Ass
Solved by verified expert:will upload additional files
controversies_in_industrial_and_organizational_assessment_wk_5_dis.docx
mmpi_2_rf_pcir_mr._c.pdf
mmpi_2_rf_pcir_sample_report_ms_d.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Controversies in Industrial and Organizational Assessment
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 11 in the text, the articles by Baez
(2013), Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007), Morgeson, Campion, and Dipboye (2007), Peterson,
Griffith, Isaacson, O’Connell, and Mangos (2011), and the Maximizing Human Potential Within
Organizations, Building Better Organizations, and Top Minds and Bottom Lines brochures on
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website.
Evaluate the MMP1-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. C and Ms. D. For this
discussion, you will take on the role of an industrial-organizational psychologist recently
awarded a contract to evaluate potential police candidates. The purpose of the evaluations is to
determine the psychological capability of the applicants to be certified as police officers in your
state. The applicants you are examining are applying for certification and will be vested with a
position of public trust. If certified as police officers, the individuals will likely be required at
some future time to exercise significant physical strength and undergo high emotional stress. As
the examining psychologist, you are required to comment on the applicants’ social
comprehension, judgment, impulse control, potential for violence, and/or any psychological traits
that might render her or him psychologically at risk to be certified. The state requires that each
applicant’s examination include the following elements:
Interview and History: The psychologist must personally interview the applicant and provide a
summary of the applicant’s personal, educational, employment, and criminal history.
Required Personality Test: The applicant shall be administered any current standard form of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) by the licensed psychologist who
interviewed the individual, or by a paraprofessional employed by and under the direct control
and supervision of that licensed psychologist.
Other Testing Methods: If (after conducting the required test) the licensed psychologist is unable
to certify the applicant’s psychological capability or risk to exercise appropriate judgment and
restraint to be certified as a police officer, the psychologist is directed to personally employ
whatever other psychological measuring instrument(s) and/or technique(s) deemed necessary to
form her or his professional opinion. The use of any such instrument(s) and/or technique(s)
requires a full and complete written explanation to the commission.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume the interview and history information reported to you
by Mr. C. and Ms. D. is unremarkable and that neither candidate communicated anything to you
during the interview that raised concerns about her or his capabilities to exercise appropriate
judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Review the MMP1-2-RF Police
Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. C. and Ms. D. and evaluate the professional interpretation
of this testing and assessment data from an ethical perspective.
In your initial post, communicate your conclusions about Mr. C. and Ms. D., either
recommending certification or communicating reservations. After you have made your decision,
begin the section on each candidate with one of the following statements, identifying each
candidate by name.
To recommend certification: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my professional
opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment and
restraint to be certified as a police officer.
Follow the above statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the
available test results.
Follow the rationale with a brief comparison of any additional assessment instruments you might
consider administering beyond the MMPI-2-RF. Debate the pros and cons of the potential use of
other assessments. Explain any ethical implications that may arise from the interpretation of this
data.
To communicate reservations: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my
professional opinion that this person is psychologically at risk for exercising appropriate
judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer.
Follow the statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the available
test results.
Text
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson. This text is a Constellation™ course digital materials (CDM) title.
E-Books
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Barnhill, J. W. (Ed.). (2014). DSM-5 Clinical Cases. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Association.
Articles
Baez, H. B. (2013). Personality tests in employment selection: Use with caution (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external site.. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved from
http://www.cornellhrreview.org/personality-tests-in-employment-selection-use-with-caution/
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment
selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality
tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 1029-1049.
Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O’Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011).
Applicant faking, social desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors.
Human Performance. 24(3), 270–290. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580808
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2014a). Building better organizations:
Industrial-organizational psychology in the workplace (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site.. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/memberbrochure.aspx
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2014b). Maximizing human potential
within organizations: Learning the science behind talent management (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site.. Retrieved from
http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/visibility.aspx
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2014c). Top minds and bottom lines:
What can I-O psychology do for your business? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/topminds.aspx
SAMPLE REPORT
Case Description: Mr. C
Police Candidate Interpretive Report
Mr. C is a 34-year-old, married male candidate for an entry-level police officer position in a large urban
agency. His background revealed some relatively minor juvenile conduct problems. After graduating high
school, he married at age 18 but divorced within three years. He then enlisted in the military and was
deployed twice to Iraq. Since his discharge four years prior to this evaluation, Mr. C has worked exclusively
in construction jobs. The background investigation revealed no adult history of job terminations or legal
conflicts. Personal and developed references described him as introverted.
Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-2-RF 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 Mr. C.’s
responses to the MMPI-2-RF. Additional MMPI-2-RF sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and
resources can be found at PearsonClinical.com/mmpi2rf.
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Q-global, Always Learning, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are atrademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and MMPI-2-RF are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 9594 01/15
Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD
M
PL
Mr. C
34
Male
Married
14
11/11/2013
SA
ID Number:
Age:
Gender:
Marital Status:
Years of Education:
Date Assessed:
E
MMPI-2-RF®
Police Candidate Interpretive Report
David M. Corey, PhD, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD
Copyright © 2014 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-2-RF test
booklet. Copyright © 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-2-RF Manual
for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.
MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF logo, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form are registered trademarks of
the University of Minnesota. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education,
Inc., or its affiliate(s).
TRADE SECRET INFORMATION
Not for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure.
[ 3.0 / 56 / 0.0.0 ]
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 2
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales
120
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
110
–100
90
80
—
E
70
T
M
PL
60
F
50
—
40
–30
—
—
—–
—
20
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
TRIN-r
F-r
Fp-r
Fs
0
0
1
5
42
42
50
100
100
100
SA
VRIN-r
3
48
100
Cannot Say (Raw):
13
65 T
100
0
Comparison Group Data:
FBS-r
–RBS
L-r
K-r
2
0
4
42
38
37
38
100
100
100
100
Percent True (of items answered):
42 %
Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2,074
):
41
52 F
44
45
45
46
46
59
63
):
7
6
4
5
6
6
7
13
8
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
92
99
75
78
92
32
20
4
0.7
Mean Score (
Standard Dev (
+
_ 1 SD
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.
VRIN-r
TRIN-r
F-r
Fp-r
Variable Response Inconsistency
True Response Inconsistency
Infrequent Responses
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses
Infrequent Somatic Responses
Fs
FBS-r Symptom Validity
Response Bias Scale
RBS
L-r Uncommon Virtues
K-r Adjustment Validity
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 3
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
Higher-Order
Restructured Clinical
120
110
—
—
100
—
—
—
—–
—
—
—
90
—–
E
80
70
50
M
PL
60
—
40
—
20
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
THD
BXD
RCd
SA
EID
—
—
—
30
—
—
—
—
—–
RC1
RC2
RC3
RC4
RC6
RC7
RC8
RC9
10
3
9
4
1
3
4
5
0
7
5
16
51
57
57
51
42
46
46
52
43
52
63
58
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Comparison Group Data:
Mean Score (
—
Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2,074
):
36
44
46
40
42
41
44
45
47
38
44
43
):
6
7
7
5
7
6
10
7
7
6
7
8
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
98
96
96
97
68
88
65
87
75
97
98
97
Standard Dev (
+
_ 1 SD
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.
EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction
THD Thought Dysfunction
BXD Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
RCd
RC1
RC2
RC3
RC4
Demoralization
Somatic Complaints
Low Positive Emotions
Cynicism
Antisocial Behavior
RC6
RC7
RC8
RC9
Ideas of Persecution
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Aberrant Experiences
Hypomanic Activation
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 4
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales
Somatic/Cognitive
Internalizing
120
110
100
—
—
—
—
—
—
90
—
—
—
80
—
—
—
—
E
–70
50
–40
—
20
Response %:
GIC
HPC
—
—
NUC
COG
SA
MLS
T Score:
—
—
30
Raw Score:
M
PL
60
Standard Dev (
—–
—
—
—
HLP
SFD
NFC
STW
AXY
ANP
BRF
MSF
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
46
46
42
41
54
45
40
56
48
47
44
47
56
36
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2,074
): 42
46
44
46
43
46
42
43
41
41
45
41
44
45
5
2
4
4
6
6
4
5
5
8
88 99.1
91
91
94
94
98
25
):
6
4
6
7
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
87
95
83
65
+
_ 1 SD
SUI
—
—
1
Comparison Group Data:
Mean Score (
—
97 99.3
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.
MLS
GIC
HPC
NUC
COG
Malaise
Gastrointestinal Complaints
Head Pain Complaints
Neurological Complaints
Cognitive Complaints
SUI
HLP
SFD
NFC
STW
Suicidal/Death Ideation
Helplessness/Hopelessness
Self-Doubt
Inefficacy
Stress/Worry
AXY
ANP
BRF
MSF
Anxiety
Anger Proneness
Behavior-Restricting Fears
Multiple Specific Fears
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 5
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales
Externalizing
Interpersonal
Interest
120
110
100
—–
90
—
—
—–
—
80
—
—
E
–70
M
PL
60
50
40
—
—
—
30
20
Response %:
SUB
AGG
ACT
SA
JCP
T Score:
Standard Dev (
FML
IPP
—
SAV
—
—
SHY
—
DSF
AES
MEC
1
1
5
3
6
1
7
3
0
1
5
50
50
67
48
68
39
65
50
44
39
61
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Comparison Group Data:
Mean Score (
—
—
—
—
Raw Score:
—
Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2,074
): 48
45
42
44
43
46
46
41
46
42
56
):
9
6
6
9
7
6
8
6
5
8
11
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
76
90
99.9
79
99.9
20
98
95
90
57
73
+
_ 1 SD
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.
JCP
SUB
AGG
ACT
Juvenile Conduct Problems
Substance Abuse
Aggression
Activation
FML
IPP
SAV
SHY
DSF
Family Problems
Interpersonal Passivity
Social Avoidance
Shyness
Disaffiliativeness
AES
MEC
Aesthetic-Literary Interests
Mechanical-Physical Interests
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 6
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales
120
110
100
——-
90
—
—
E
80
70
50
40
M
PL
60
—
30
—
20
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
PSYC-r
SA
AGGR-r
Comparison Group Data:
Mean Score (
—
—
—
DISC-r
NEGE-r
INTR-r
13
3
10
6
8
65
56
59
49
54
100
100
100
100
100
Police Officer Candidate (Men and Women), N = 2,074
):
51
44
50
39
47
):
7
7
8
6
7
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
98
95
93
95
89
Standard Dev (
+
_ 1 SD
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.
AGGR-r
PSYC-r
DISC-r
NEGE-r
INTR-r
Aggressiveness-Revised
Psychoticism-Revised
Disconstraint-Revised
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 7
ID: Mr. C
MMPI-2-RF T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness
Over-Reporting
Under-Reporting
0
48
CNS
VRIN-r
65 T
TRIN-r
42
42
50
42
38
F-r
Fp-r
Fs
FBS-r
RBS
37
38
L-r
K-r
SUBSTANTIVE SCALES
46
42
41
54
GIC
HPC
NUC
COG
51
51
45
EID
RCd
SUI
40
56
48
HLP
SFD
NFC
46
54
RC2
INTR-r
52
47
44
47
56
36
49
RC7
STW
AXY
ANP
BRF
MSF
NEGE-r
57
43
THD
RC6
SA
Thought Dysfunction
46
MLS
M
PL
Emotional Dysfunction
42
RC1
E
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction
63
RC8
56
PSYC-r
Behavioral Dysfunction
57
52
50
50
BXD
RC4
JCP
SUB
Interpersonal Functioning
Interests
58
67
48
65
59
RC9
AGG
ACT
AGGR-r
DISC-r
68
46
39
65
50
44
FML
RC3
IPP
SAV
SHY
DSF
39
61
AES
MEC
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-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of the
MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 8
ID: Mr. C
This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional qualified to interpret the MMPI-2-RF
in the context of preemployment psychological evaluations of police and other law enforcement
officer 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-2-RF normative sample, as well as scores obtained by the multisite
sample of 2,074 individuals that make up the Police Officer Candidate comparison group.
E
The interpretive statements in the Clinical Findings and Diagnostic Considerations sections of the
report are based on T scores derived from the general MMPI-2-RF normative sample. Following
recommended practice, only T scores of 65 and higher are considered clinically significant. Scores
at this clinical level are generally rare among police officer candidates.
M
PL
Statements in the Comparison Group Findings and Job-Relevant Correlates sections are based on
comparisons with scores obtained by the Police Officer 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.
SA
Sources for interpretive statements in all sections are listed in the Endnotes section of this report.
See User’s Guide for the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report for detailed information
on report features.
SYNOPSIS
This is a valid MMPI-2-RF protocol. Scores on the substantive scales indicate clinically significant
behavioral and interpersonal dysfunction. Behavioral-externalizing problems relate to aggression.
Interpersonal difficulties include family problems and social avoidance.
Comparison group findings point to additional possible concerns about self-doubt, odd perceptions and
beliefs, and excitation.
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, Integrity, Conscientiousness and Dependability,
Substance Use, and Impulse Control.
MMPI-2-RF® Police Candidate Interpretive Report
11/11/2013, Page 9
ID: Mr. C
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness
There are no problems with unscorable items in this protocol. The test taker responded relevantly to the
items on the basis of their content.
Over-Reporting
There are no indications of over-reporting in this protocol.
Under-Reporting
E
The candidate’s scores show no evidence of under-reporting, indicating a cooperative test-taking
approach.
M
PL
The test taker claimed no uncommon virtues1. This very rare pattern of responding is found in only
4.0% of the Police Officer Candidate comparison group members.
In addition, he reported being much less well-adjusted than members of the general population2. Less
than 1% of the Police Officer Candidate comparison group reported this low level of psychological
adjustment. As detailed later in th …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades