I am required to have a number of job applicants tested for psychological fitness before hiring them. We use the MMPI. I proctor the test and send it in to be "scored" as it were. People falling outside certain parameters (to which I am not privy) are referred to a head shrinker for evaluation. They are almost always recommended for hire. I have noticed about a 10 percent "failure" rate. I'm ok with that, I figure it's partly a device to increase the bill rate because an interview costs more than the test. The part that bothers me is that, of the ten percent, about 85 percent are veterans. Is this test perhaps biased against the military? I already see my General Manager is biased against military and in favor of stupid education degrees. To me, a Liberal Arts major is worth about .001 percent of an Afghanistan veteran. WTF?

Of the 90% how many are veterans?

The short answer is no, it is not biased against veterans.

There was an episode of Blue Bloods not long ago where it was found that the tests given to applicants was biased against vets. Just a tv show I know.

quote:

MMPI

?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

MMPI

?

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

I've heard it said that LEOs with more than a few years of service also have trouble with the MMPI, but I don't know if that's a verified fact or just scuttlebutt. If true, there may be a similar reason for military veterans failing at a higher than normal rate.

I do know that when I took it upon hire, I was sane going into it but damn near went insane by the end of the 500+ questions.

The MMPI is not a pass/ fail test and is not biased towards the military. An interview with a clinical psychologist who works in the security field is a much better approach. Of course that costs more money. The MMPI is a self report Personality Inventory that is actually a pretty poor screening instrument for job applicants. A mid level manager with experience in the hiring of security personnel would make more sense.

Having read your previous posts I am guessing the corporate people came up with that approach.

I took the MMPI twice.

Failed the first because I wasn't black... Chicago Housing Authority, go figure.

Passed it the 2nd time for Chicago Police.


Overall the MMPI is a nice GAGUE for applicants, but it's not the "Be all - End all" for a standard. It does help weed out some of the malcontents, but not all. As ZSMICHAEL stated, a Clinical Pshrink is IN ADDITION TO the MMPI a valuable asset in the hiring process.

85 percent of the failures are veterans. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, corporate morons in Britain require the test. And I personally have taken it 18 times-with 16 requirements for clinical interview. The Army has NO sense of humor at all. They also refuse to believe in weird shit.

I had to take it to get hired at my airline, it was pretty weird test, with some bazaar questions, and equally bazaar multiple answers. Don't know if it has changed much, this was back in the 1980's.

I don't want anything with the name Minnesota in it telling me my personality - do I pass or fail?

I've taken it several times for jobs and it is a bit tricky coming with answers without context for anyone who has been employed in any job involving the need for violence. Outside scoring eliminate the opportunity for you to understand their answers with context.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
I don't want anything with the name Minnesota in it telling me my personality - do I pass or fail?

You are ok in my book!

I had some smatterings of how to interpret the versions from the 60s & 70s. It was 'a measuring tool' one step up from 'no measuring tool' in that era. Of course depending on which professor/which school of thought you favored either embraced or rejected the whole thing.

Either side could conjure up reasons to believe in or reject whatever the results may be in any individual case.

I'd expect the validity to have been considerably improved the last 40+ years.

Large bureaucracies tend to favor such devices as it give the impression they have some valid excuse to make the choices they do in their the HR department.

The MMPI is designed to detect psychopathology. In other words, it is designed to detect actual craziness. It is not a general-purpose personality test.

I doubt the MMPI is really of much use in employment screening. I suggest you research this, and think about whether the test is actually of any use to your purpose. I won't say it has no utility, but I really think it is less useful for this purpose than many think.

This isn't unusual. Many use the MMPI for such things. Signewt is right - HR departments love such things as it lends a "scientific" aura to the selection process. The problem is that it is mostly a false aura of scientific exactitude.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
The MMPI is not a pass/ fail test and is not biased towards the military. An interview with a clinical psychologist who works in the security field is a much better approach. Of course that costs more money. The MMPI is a self report Personality Inventory that is actually a pretty poor screening instrument for job applicants. A mid level manager with experience in the hiring of security personnel would make more sense.

Having read your previous posts I am guessing the corporate people came up with that approach.

Yes.

I've taken it a number of times, mostly for classes and training.

There is no bias in the test itself, because there is no "right" or "wrong" answers...and the test hasn't changed in years.

The bias comes in what the hiring body is looking for. they are the ones who look at the results and decide which scores, in which areas, they deem worthy

quote:

I do know that when I took it upon hire, I was sane going into it but damn near went insane by the end of the 500+ questions.

You got off lucky, you should have taken the version with 1200 questions

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
I had to take it to get hired at my airline, it was pretty weird test, with some bazaar questions, and equally bazaar multiple answers. Don't know if it has changed much, this was back in the 1980's.

Maybe, since you're working for an airline, they wanted to make sure you could answer passenger's questions about where to buy rugs and magic monkey paws?

The MMPI was developed at a mental hospital in Minnesota. It was "normed" by giving it to relative that visited patients. Think about that.
The good news is that has been a huge amount of further research.
I've given several hundred. How you report the test is being given is really questionable. We never, ever just gave one test. It was always multiple tests that could be compared. This included an IQ test. Plus, the person administering the testing had to write a detailed report. Spend a day testing someone, you get a good understanding of them.
About the only thing you can get from just one test would be the validity scales. You can see if the person is trying to make themselves look good or bad.