Psych screening for Law Enforcement is designed to meet three purposes. First, to screen out undesirables. Second is to determine if the individual is likely to be successful in that line of work. And third, will the individual fit into the agency's culture. None of those tests are of much value if not followed up by a clinical interview with a licensed psychologist. The art is in the interpretation. The psych test abd physical exam results cannot be considered until after a conditional employment offer.
Undesirable personalities are pretty easy to spot and nobody wants them. Failure to meet the mark in the other areas does not mean you are a bad person, just that you are not a good fit. We used a police psychologist for years who rated candidates A,B, or C. Hiring decisions were made by the department taking this and many other factors into consideration. C applicants were generally disqualified. Over the years we learned that the non A applicants were more likely to have problems at work. Native intelligence plays a big role as well.
Personality tests have been around for a long time with feedback to validate the data. Certain personality profiles may be a good fit for multiple careers. A good police dispatcher for example shares similar traits with a good waiter or waitress. Police officers are more difficult to nail down due to the multidisciplinary nature of the job.
CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired)
January 22, 2018, 11:50 AM
Rightwire
Does manipulated count?
Pronoun: His Royal Highness and benevolent Majesty of all he surveys
343 - Never Forget
Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat
There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive.
January 22, 2018, 11:58 AM
Crom
I don't take "psych tests", and I also refuse to be examined by a Phrenologist.
"Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me."
January 22, 2018, 12:05 PM
pulicords
quote:
Originally posted by HayesGreener: Personality tests have been around for a long time with feedback to validate the data. Certain personality profiles may be a good fit for multiple careers. A good police dispatcher for example shares similar traits with a good waiter or waitress. Police officers are more difficult to nail down due to the multidisciplinary nature of the job.
At an informal function that I attended while still employed as a supervisor at my police department, I spent some time talking with our department (contracted) psychologist about the testing process and learned how subjective the clinical interview can be. A name came up and we discussed how she had been uncertain of whether or not he'd do well. I pointed out that over the previous three years or so since his appointment, he'd proven himself to be an outstanding employee, with absolutely no issues as far as the other supervisors or I were concerned. That officer is now a sergeant himself and while the psychologist never disclosed what kinds of problem(s) or concerns she had about him as an applicant, she pretty much admitted she'd called it wrong.
On the flip side, back in the late 1980's we contracted with another firm and the psychologists that conducted those clinical interviews routinely DQ'd applicants that went elsewhere and did fine, while far too many that were approved for hire by us turned out to be major flops. Conferring with other agencies that hired these people also verified that those departments had the same experiences we did; trainees that were incapable of doing the job properly or (if they passed probation) were subsequently fired or resigned due to malfeasance.
I'm not a psychologist myself and don't own a crystal ball that enables me to make these determinations, but when I'm told (as was the case) that clinical interviews are as much "art as science", I tend to look at them as being far more subjective than I'm comfortable with.
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
January 22, 2018, 12:15 PM
egregore
Any such test for me would probably be a non-starter. "Cut the shit. How much does it pay?"
While not quite the same thing, they are similar in intent. I have taken some "what would you do in this customer service situation" tests. One stopped me in the middle and said, "Don't bother continuing, you failed." Another similar test seemed preoccupied with stealing, whether on my part or someone else's. I answered the questions in such a way as to convey I'm not a thief, but I would also not be a snitch. I didn't get either of those jobs. The situations also had nothing to do with my potential job, as in them I would have had neither (or very limited) contact with customers nor access to money.
January 22, 2018, 01:43 PM
HayesGreener
quote:
Originally posted by pulicords:
quote:
Originally posted by HayesGreener: Personality tests have been around for a long time with feedback to validate the data. Certain personality profiles may be a good fit for multiple careers. A good police dispatcher for example shares similar traits with a good waiter or waitress. Police officers are more difficult to nail down due to the multidisciplinary nature of the job.
At an informal function that I attended while still employed as a supervisor at my police department, I spent some time talking with our department (contracted) psychologist about the testing process and learned how subjective the clinical interview can be. A name came up and we discussed how she had been uncertain of whether or not he'd do well. I pointed out that over the previous three years or so since his appointment, he'd proven himself to be an outstanding employee, with absolutely no issues as far as the other supervisors or I were concerned. That officer is now a sergeant himself and while the psychologist never disclosed what kinds of problem(s) or concerns she had about him as an applicant, she pretty much admitted she'd called it wrong.
On the flip side, back in the late 1980's we contracted with another firm and the psychologists that conducted those clinical interviews routinely DQ'd applicants that went elsewhere and did fine, while far too many that were approved for hire by us turned out to be major flops. Conferring with other agencies that hired these people also verified that those departments had the same experiences we did; trainees that were incapable of doing the job properly or (if they passed probation) were subsequently fired or resigned due to malfeasance.
I'm not a psychologist myself and don't own a crystal ball that enables me to make these determinations, but when I'm told (as was the case) that clinical interviews are as much "art as science", I tend to look at them as being far more subjective than I'm comfortable with.
The individual psychologist you use must be competent and honest. I never met a police psychologist who did not admit having misjudged someone at one time or another. But a competent psychologist using validated testing instruments will get it right most of the time. It's not 100 percent but the alternative is to hire some mistakes that could have been avoided and then deal with their wreckage. Bottom line is that the psychologist does not make the final decision, the hiring authority makes the call.
CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired)
January 22, 2018, 01:56 PM
Ozarkwoods
I don’t think I failed the test since I was hired. Do you look at your shit before flushing? YES I DO!....just one of the questions I remember from 38 yrs ago.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
January 22, 2018, 02:20 PM
rtquig
quote:
Originally posted by thumperfbc:
quote:
Originally posted by Nuclear:
Most of the questions were the same ones asked over and over in different ways, along with a few batshit crazy questions.
That was my experience too when I got hired. Seemed like the same 7 questions worded 20 different ways each in a multiple choice format. Then the sane 7 questions worded 20 different ways each in a fill in the blank style. Then questions about Asian people and women. And fire.
Very long 3 hours.
The first time I took one it did take about 3 hours. I was working at nuclear reactors for refueling. Each new refuel at another facility required taking the test. In the end it was a 30 minute test for me. Same questions asked differently.
Living the Dream
January 22, 2018, 02:30 PM
Edmond
quote:
Originally posted by Ozarkwoods: Do you look at your shit before flushing?
The better question would be: who doesn't shit before flushing?
_____________
January 22, 2018, 02:34 PM
HayesGreener
quote:
Originally posted by Edmond:
quote:
Originally posted by Ozarkwoods: Do you look at your shit before flushing?
The better question would be: who doesn't shit before flushing?
A better followup question would be, "Do you post pictures on Facebook?"
CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired)
January 22, 2018, 02:51 PM
wishfull thinker
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
seriously snipped for brevity:
The MMPI was ridiculous.
Ranges from stuff like "I think I would like to be a florist" to "My stool is black and tar-like".
I had to take that one when I was a midshipman in NROTC. I don't know how I did but I ended up in the Marines...so I dunno
But the creatives among us made up a song about it, all I can remember, sung to 'Do Your Ears Hang Low" of grade school fame:
"Are Your feces black and tarry, do you keep them in a jar
do you take them out to play with when your drinking in a bar"
There was much more but it was a long time ago and I've evolved. again
_______________________
January 22, 2018, 04:10 PM
selogic
When I worked for the power company , I took a psych test at the nuke plant as part of the process to get " Unescorted Access " . It was almost 300 questions and many of them were just reworded . Some of the crap on there was unreal . " Do you hate your Mother ? " Have you ever had the desire to kill someone " ? My method has always been to tell them what they want to hear but above all be consistent . Worked every time .
January 22, 2018, 04:17 PM
jhe888
quote:
Originally posted by arfmel: I'm curious. How can refusing to hire a person because they "fail" a psych test not be a form of discrimination against someone who has a disability? Even if the tests were accurate.
You can discriminate against the disabled if the disability genuinely makes it impossible for the person to perform their job duties and no reasonable accommodation is possible.
So, I can discriminate against a person with no legs if I am hiring a high jumper. I don't have to hire a crazy person if he applies for a police job.
Now, whether those tests measure anything meaningful or significant is another question. I have my doubts, but it seems very excitingly scientific and relevant to some employers.
MMPIs in particular are not relevant to employment. That test is properly used to diagnose pathology. Most people aren't actually crazy, and using the MMPI to screen relatively normal people is simply not valid.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
January 22, 2018, 04:22 PM
jhe888
quote:
Originally posted by pulicords:
quote:
Originally posted by HayesGreener: Personality tests have been around for a long time with feedback to validate the data. Certain personality profiles may be a good fit for multiple careers. A good police dispatcher for example shares similar traits with a good waiter or waitress. Police officers are more difficult to nail down due to the multidisciplinary nature of the job.
At an informal function that I attended while still employed as a supervisor at my police department, I spent some time talking with our department (contracted) psychologist about the testing process and learned how subjective the clinical interview can be. A name came up and we discussed how she had been uncertain of whether or not he'd do well. I pointed out that over the previous three years or so since his appointment, he'd proven himself to be an outstanding employee, with absolutely no issues as far as the other supervisors or I were concerned. That officer is now a sergeant himself and while the psychologist never disclosed what kinds of problem(s) or concerns she had about him as an applicant, she pretty much admitted she'd called it wrong.
On the flip side, back in the late 1980's we contracted with another firm and the psychologists that conducted those clinical interviews routinely DQ'd applicants that went elsewhere and did fine, while far too many that were approved for hire by us turned out to be major flops. Conferring with other agencies that hired these people also verified that those departments had the same experiences we did; trainees that were incapable of doing the job properly or (if they passed probation) were subsequently fired or resigned due to malfeasance.
I'm not a psychologist myself and don't own a crystal ball that enables me to make these determinations, but when I'm told (as was the case) that clinical interviews are as much "art as science", I tend to look at them as being far more subjective than I'm comfortable with.
I think that is an accurate assessment of the usefulness of those tests. I have studied them a bit, as there was a time in family law when courts were ordering psych assessments, and the headshrinkers were often administering those tests as part of their evaluations. I came to the conclusions that those tests didn't have much legitimate application to that set of facts. Luckily, that trend has fallen off.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
January 22, 2018, 04:23 PM
WaterburyBob
I can't say that I've ever had to take one in the first place.
"If Gun Control worked, Chicago would look like Mayberry, not Thunderdome" - Cam Edwards
January 22, 2018, 05:05 PM
rtquig
quote:
Originally posted by selogic: When I worked for the power company , I took a psych test at the nuke plant as part of the process to get " Unescorted Access " . It was almost 300 questions and many of them were just reworded . Some of the crap on there was unreal . " Do you hate your Mother ? " Have you ever had the desire to kill someone " ? My method has always been to tell them what they want to hear but above all be consistent . Worked every time .
Exactly. Took that test 6 different times.
Living the Dream
January 22, 2018, 05:18 PM
KMitch200
Took one once but the expanded metal covering the window was loose, so I didn't wait around for the results.
-------- After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
January 22, 2018, 08:48 PM
kimber1911
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888: MMPIs in particular are not relevant to employment. That test is properly used to diagnose pathology. Most people aren't actually crazy, and using the MMPI to screen relatively normal people is simply not valid.
On some occasions it can be spot on. Took the test numerous times.
After one such test they let me meet the psychologist. He told me the MMPI flagged me as too good to be true. Told him that sounded very accurate to me.
“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” Pres. Select, Joe Biden
“Let’s go, Brandon” Kelli Stavast, 2 Oct. 2021
January 22, 2018, 09:35 PM
mr kablammo
Did not take the MMPI nor 'fail' a test as framed by the OP. I took PSYC 102 or PSYC 201 in college. The professor had real life experience with the police or an hospital. In one class the subject was inkblots and how to use them. I think the inkblots were historical artifacts by that time. Several students, including me, took a try at our 'craziest' interpretation of the blots. Not even close. From what the professor said you cannot imagine nor imagine that you can imagine 'crazy'.
The screening tests were also a topic. Consistency was a key. The tests were supposedly given generational updates.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye". The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, pilot and author, lost on mission, July 1944, Med Theatre.
