using the mmpi-2-rf in fitness- for-duty evaluations of police and

Using the MMPI-2-RF in Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations of Police and Other Public Safety PersonnelDavid M. CoreyCorey & Stewart, Portland, [email protected]

Yossef S. Ben-PorathKent State [email protected]

DisclosureYossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota, and distributor, Pearson. As co-author of the MMPI-2-RF he receives royalties on sales of the test.David Corey receives research funding from the University of Minnesota.

Overview• Research Update to Corey & Ben-Porath, “Use of the MMPI-2-RF in Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations: Empirical Findings” (IACP-PPSS, San Diego, September 29, 2012)

• Expanded sample size• N=153 to N=709• 125 men to 556 men• 28 women to 153 women

Overview (continued)• Expanded subject pool

• Previously limited to examinees in Pacific Northwest

• Expanded subject pool includes additional subjects from states in the South, West, Pacific Islands, Southwest, South, and East

Overview (continued)• Focused on development of a comparison group (CG) for police and other public safety employees undergoing psychological fitness-for-duty (FFDE) evaluations using the MMPI-2-RF

• Compares law enforcement officers (LEOs) to other public safety employees to assess whether unique CG’s vs. merged CG is required

Acknowledgments• Assessment record contributors

• Matthew Guller, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP• Michael Cuttler, Ph.D., ABPP• Jocelyn Roland, Ph.D., ABPP• Monica J. Pilarc, Ph.D., ABPP

• Data analysis• Anthony Tarescavage, Ph.D.

Special Issues in Public Safety FFDEs

•Lower referral threshold• “In any case where a police department reasonably perceives an officer to be even mildly paranoid, hostile, or oppositional, a fitness for duty examination is job related and consistent with business necessity.” Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 1999)


•Lower referral threshold• “Where employers advancing safety as the business necessity demonstrate that the medical test or inquiry makes even a small contribution to reducing the risks posed by unfit [employees], it is amply justified.” EEOC v. U.S. Steel No. 10-1248 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2013)

Special Issues in Public Safety FFDEs• Lower referral threshold

• “[P]olice departments place armed officers in positions where they can do tremendous harm if they act irrationally. When a police department has good reason to doubt an officer’s ability to respond to these situations in an appropriate manner, an FFDE is consistent with the ADA.” Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140, 2010 (9th Cir. 2010).


•Higher fitness standard• Preemployment psychological suitability standards for law enforcement officers apply throughout their career• Sager v. County of Yuba, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1049 (2007)

• Brown v. Sandy City Appeal Board, No. 20130433-CA, 2014 UT App 158


•Higher fitness standard• “In assessing whether an employee can perform his duties without a significant risk to the safety of himself or others, we must consider the nature of the position and the consequences should the employee fail to perform his duties properly.” Lassiter, No. 95-2058 (4th Cir., 1996)

Special Issues in Public Safety FFDEs•Lower referral threshold

• Results in referrals of employees who have no (or no significant) psychopathology

•Higher fitness standard• Results in public safety employees being potentially deemed unfit for duty owing to psychological findings that may not render them unfit in another position

Why Context Matters• Anticipated gains or losses associated with psychological testing can influence test scores (Arbisi, Ben-Porath, & McNulty, 2006; Walfish, 2011)

• Understanding the effect of context on test scores is essential for assessing validity (Bornstein, 2010)

2012 Conclusions and Discussion• Scale elevations <65T will be seen in a substantial portion of public safety officers with known impairment resulting in unfit determinations

• Scale scores <65T, particularly on scales indicating emotional turmoil, dissatisfaction with life, somatic complaints, helplessness, and dysfunctional negative emotions, correlate with impaired fitness

Current Study - Demographics• N=709 FFDE Evaluees

• 556 Males, 153 Females• Average Age: 38.6 years (SD = 9.1)• Positions

• 556 Law Enforcement (448 males, 111 females)• 153 Other Public Safety (108 males, 42 females)

Positions - Other Public Safety• n = 54 Male Correction Officers• n = 44 Male Firefighters• n = 10 Male Dispatchers

• n = 24 Female Correction Officers• n = 12 Female Dispatchers• n = 6 Female Firefighters

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

Male LEO (n=448) Mean 45 51 49 46 48 54 50 54 58Standard Dev 9 8 11 7 9 11 11 11 11Male PS-Other (n=108) Mean 45 51 52 48 51 55 53 54 58Standard Dev 9 8 15 9 12 12 13 11 11Female LEO (n=111) Mean 45 50 51 48 49 56 52 53 56Standard Dev 8 8 11 8 12 14 11 11 11Female PS-Other (n=42) Mean 49 52 54 48 52 62 54 52 55Standard Dev 10 8 11 9 12 11 12 10 11

FFDE Evaluees (N=709)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

Male LEO (n=448) Male PS-Other (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111) Female PS-Other (n=42)

Female LEO v Female OTH

d = .54

Male OTH v Female OTH

d = .58

F

F

F

FDE Evaluees (N=709)

EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9


Male LEO (n=448) Mean 45 47 48 47 47 48 44 48 53 42 45 44Standard Dev 12 9 8 11 11 11 10 9 11 10 8 9Male PS-Other (n=108) Mean 47 48 48 48 49 50 43 49 52 43 47 43Standard Dev 12 10 8 12 13 12 9 9 11 10 9 8Female LEO (n=111) Mean 48 45 46 49 50 50 48 46 51 45 44 43Standard Dev 13 8 7 12 12 11 12 9 10 10 8 8Female PS-Other (n=42) Mean 52 49 44 54 56 55 45 48 54 46 47 42Standard Dev 13 9 8 13 10 13 9 8 12 10 8 9


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (HO) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

Male LEO (n=448) Male PS-Other (n=108) Female LEO (n=111) Female PS-Other (n=42)

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

Female LEO v Female OTH

d = .52

Male OTH v Female OTH

d = .63

FDE Evaluees (N=709)

NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSFMale LEO (n=448) Mean 51 51 49 49 46 49 46 47 43 47 50 45 46 46Standard Dev 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 10 12 10 7 8Male PS-Other (n=108) Mean 51 52 49 51 49 50 46 49 45 49 51 45 47 45Standard Dev 11 12 11 12 12 14 10 11 10 11 12 9 8 8Female LEO (n=111) Mean 52 53 53 50 47 50 48 50 44 48 51 45 45 49Standard Dev 11 13 13 9 10 10 11 10 9 11 12 10 7 9Female PS-Other (n=42) Mean 57 56 55 54 53 51 49 54 48 50 51 45 47 50Standard Dev 11 15 11 11 12 14 11 12 10 10 10 8 8 9


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales


Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing

Male OTHv Female OTH

d = .54

Female LEOv Female OTH

d = .57

Male OTHv Female OTH

d = .55

DSF AES MEC

JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MECMale LEO (n=448) Mean 50 47 46 43 44 48 52 44 47 40 59Standard Dev 9 8 8 9 8 8 11 8 8 8 0Male PS-Other (n=108) Mean 50 49 45 44 45 49 52 45 49 43 58Standard Dev 9 10 8 10 10 8 12 9 10 9 11Female LEO (n=111) Mean 48 47 46 43 47 48 52 45 48 44 51Standard Dev 9 7 8 9 9 8 12 9 10 9 8Female PS-Other (n=42) Mean 48 47 46 45 49 52 53 47 50 45 49Standard Dev 10 7 8 12 11 12 13 9 11 10 10


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales


Externalizing Interpersonal Interest

Malesv Females d = .94 ‐ .97

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-rAGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

Male LEO (n=448) Mean 51 45 51 45 52Standard Dev 8 8 8 10 11Male PS-Other (n=108) Mean 49 46 51 47 53Standard Dev 8 9 8 11 12Female LEO (n=111) Mean 50 45 46 47 54Standard Dev 8 8 7 11 12Female PS-Other (n=42) Mean 46 48 45 48 56Standard Dev 9 9 7 10 12


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5)

Male LEO (n=448) Male PS-Other (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111) Female PS-Other (n=42)

Malesv Females d = .65 ‐ .76

Elevation Rates – Validity Scales

CriteriaMale LEO (n=448)

Male PS-OTH (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111)

VRIN-r >= 70 0.7 0.0 0.0TRIN-r >= 70 1.8 2.8 0.9F-r >=80 2.2 6.5 3.6Fp-r >= 70 1.1 2.8 0.0Fs >= 80 1.1 4.6 3.6FBS-r >= 80 2.9 4.6 7.2RBS >=80 2.2 5.6 2.7L-r >= 80 3.8 2.8 1.8K = 72 9.4 9.3 6.3

Elevation Rates – Higher Order and RC Scales


Male PS-OTH (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111)

EID >=65T 8.7 10.2 9.9THD >=65T 2.7 3.7 1.8BXD >=65T 2.7 4.6 0.9RCd >=65T 8.9 11.1 14.4RC1 >=65T 7.8 12.0 11.7RC2 >=65T 10.0 11.1 10.8RC3 >=65T 5.6 4.6 10.8RC4 >=65T 6.0 10.2 2.7RC6 >=65T 17.0 15.7 13.5RC7 >=65T 4.2 5.6 6.3RC8 >=65T 2.7 5.6 1.8RC9 >=65T 2.5 0.9 2.7

Elevation Rates – Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Specific Problems Scales


Male PS-OTH (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111)

MLS >=65T 10.5 11.1 13.5GIC >=65T 10.7 14.8 12.6HPC >=65T 11.4 13.9 19.8NUC >=65T 9.4 18.5 6.3COG >=65T 6.5 8.3 4.5SUI >=65T 12.9 13.9 18.0HLP >=65T 5.6 6.5 6.3SFD >=65T 9.4 15.7 18.0NFC >=65T 1.6 7.4 3.6STW >=65T 10.3 13.9 15.3AXY >=65T 11.4 18.5 16.2ANP >=65T 9.4 5.6 8.1BRF >=65T 1.1 2.8 1.8MSF >=65T 3.6 2.8 9.0

Elevation Rates – Externalizing and Interpersonal Specific Problems Scales


Male PS-OTH

(n=108)Female LEO

(n=111)JCP >=65T 5.6 3.7 3.6SUB >=65T 4.2 5.6 1.8AGG >=65T 3.6 1.9 3.6ACT >=65T 2.2 4.6 4.5FML >=65T 2.0 5.6 6.3IPP >=65T 4.9 6.5 5.4SAV >=65T 18.5 18.5 18.0SHY >=65T 4.7 9.3 9.0DSF >=65T 4.7 11.1 7.2

Elevation Rates – PSY-5 Scales


Male PS-OTH (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111)

AGGR >=65T 9.6 4.6 6.3PSYC >=65T 2.5 5.6 1.8DISC >=65T 6.3 7.4 1.8NEGE >=65T 5.8 7.4 8.1INTR >=65T 12.1 18.5 16.2

Elevation Rates – Scale Sets


Male PS-OTH (n=108)

Female LEO (n=111)

Any H-O Scale >=60 23.4 24.1 24.3Any H-O Scale >= 65 12.5 14.8 11.7Any RC Scale >=60 43.8 40.7 46.8Any RC Scale >= 65 32.6 30.6 32.4Any SOM/COG Scale >=60 31.9 36.1 41.4Any SOM/COG Scale >= 65 23.9 28.7 29.7Any Internalizing Scale >=60 34.6 38.0 45.0Any Internalizing Scale >= 65 31.9 37.0 44.1Any Externalizing Scale >=60 25.0 26.9 23.4Any Externalizing Scale >= 65 14.1 12.0 12.6Any Interpersonal Scale >=60 28.8 35.2 34.2Any Interpersonal Scale >= 65 25.2 29.6 29.7Any PSY-5 Scale >=60 45.8 48.1 49.5Any PSY-5 Scale >= 65 29.0 30.6 27.9Any Substantive Scale >=60 70.5 74.1 73.0Any Substantive Scale >= 65 60.7 55.6 59.5

Fit vs Unfit Mean Comparisons

Male LEO Fit

(n=170)

Male LEO Unfit

(n=150)

Male PS-Other Fit

(n=35)

Male PS-Other Unfit

(n=52)

Female LEO Fit (n=33)

Female LEO Unfit

(n=23)M SD M SD d M SD M SD d M SD M SD d

EID 40 7 50 14 -.94 42 7 51 15 -.88 44 12 55 14 -.77

RCd 42 6 52 13 -1.02 43 7 53 13 -.96 46 11 56 12 -.82RC1 43 8 51 13 -.79 44 8 53 15 -.85 46 8 58 15 -1.01RC2 44 7 54 13 -.91 45 7 55 14 -.88 47 11 55 14 -.62

MLS 47 8 55 12 -.75 46 6 55 13 -.98 47 10 59 11 -1.15GIC 48 7 54 14 -.62 47 7 56 15 -.84 50 10 59 15 -.70HPC 46 7 52 12 -.61 45 8 52 12 -.67 49 10 58 16 -.68NUC 46 7 52 12 -.61 46 8 56 13 -.94 46 7 58 12 -1.20COG 43 5 51 13 -.90 43 5 54 14 -1.17 44 10 55 11 -1.03

Fit vs Unfit Mean Comparisons

Male LEO Fit (n=170)

Male LEO Unfit

(n=150)

Male PS-Other Fit

(n=35)

Male PS-Other Unfit

(n=52)

Female LEO Fit (n=33)

Female LEO Unfit

(n=23)M SD M SD d M SD M SD d M SD M SD d

HLP 44 6 49 11 -.60 43 4 49 13 -.71 46 7 54 16 -.69SFD 44 5 51 11 -.79 45 8 51 12 -.60 48 9 55 12 -.69ANP 42 7 48 12 -.55 41 4 47 11 -.83 44 10 50 12 -.55

AGG 43 7 48 9 -.52 42 6 47 10 -.67 45 7 51 9 -.85

NEGE-r 42 8 49 12 -.70 43 7 49 13 -.60 45 12 52 11 -.59INTR-r 50 9 56 13 -.55 50 8 56 14 -.57 52 11 59 14 -.58

Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Male LEO (n=320; BR=47%)

Scale Cutoff SRRisk if Elev

Risk if Not Elev RRR CI Low CI High

EID 65T 10.0% 96.9% 41.3% 2.34 2.02 2.73EID 55T 18.1% 87.9% 37.8% 2.33 1.94 2.79RCd 65T 9.7% 96.8% 41.5% 2.33 2.00 2.71RCd 55T 20.0% 90.6% 35.9% 2.52 2.10 3.02RC1 65T 7.8% 84.0% 43.7% 1.92 1.55 2.38RC1 55T 21.3% 77.9% 38.5% 2.02 1.66 2.48RC2 65T 11.3% 91.7% 41.2% 2.23 1.88 2.64RC2 55T 20.3% 84.6% 37.3% 2.27 1.88 2.75MLS 65T 10.3% 81.8% 42.9% 1.91 1.55 2.35MLS 55T 29.4% 72.3% 36.3% 1.99 1.61 2.47GIC 65T 11.3% 88.9% 41.5% 2.14 1.79 2.56GIC 55T 19.4% 74.2% 40.3% 1.84 1.49 2.27HPC 65T 10.6% 85.3% 42.3% 2.02 1.66 2.45HPC 55T 19.7% 73.0% 40.5% 1.80 1.46 2.23NUC 65T 8.8% 85.7% 43.2% 1.99 1.63 2.43NUC 55T 21.3% 72.1% 40.1% 1.80 1.46 2.22

Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Male LEO (n=320; BR=47%) (cont.)



COG 65T 7.8% 100.0% 42.4% 2.36 2.07 2.70COG 55T 13.8% 93.2% 39.5% 2.36 2.00 2.79HLP 65T 5.6% 94.4% 44.0% 2.14 1.81 2.54HLP 55T 11.3% 83.3% 42.3% 1.97 1.62 2.41SFD 65T 10.0% 93.8% 41.7% 2.25 1.91 2.65SFD 55T 16.6% 84.9% 39.3% 2.16 1.79 2.60ANP 65T 9.7% 74.2% 43.9% 1.69 1.32 2.16ANP 55T 13.8% 72.7% 42.8% 1.70 1.36 2.13AGG 65T 4.4% 71.4% 45.8% 1.56 1.10 2.22AGG 55T 14.1% 66.7% 43.6% 1.53 1.19 1.95

NEGE 65T 5.9% 89.5% 44.2% 2.02 1.66 2.47NEGE 55T 16.9% 74.1% 41.4% 1.79 1.45 2.22INTR 65T 12.2% 82.1% 42.0% 1.95 1.60 2.39INTR 55T 30.6% 66.3% 38.3% 1.73 1.39 2.16

Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Male OTH (n=87; BR=60%)




Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Male OTH (n=87; BR=60%) (cont.)





Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Female LEO (n=56; BR=41%)




Fit vs Unfit – RRR – Female LEO (n=56; BR=41%) (cont.)





Discussion•Descriptively:

• Leo and Other FFDE evaluees produce largely comparable MMPI-2-RF scores• Remains to be seen whether Women in other group are distinct

• Alternative explanations:• Small N• Different proportions of Fire Fighters and

Dispatchers

Discussion•Descriptively:

• Male and Female LEO FFDE Evalueesproduce large comparable MMPI-2-RF scores

• Exceptions are scores on scales where we typically find gender differences: MEC, DISC-r

Discussion• Elevation Findings

• Validity Scale elevations are rare• Substantive Scale elevations in the clinical are common:• 55-61 percent produce at least one clinically-elevated

(T>65) substantive scale score • 70-74 percent produce at least one clinically-elevated

(T>65) substantive scale score

Discussion•Fit versus Unfit Findings:

• Several MMPI-2-RF scales consistently differentiated between the three fit versus unfit groups with large effect sizes:EID RC1 AGG NEGE-rRCd MLS INTR-rRC2 GICHLP HPCSFD NUCANP COG

Discussion•Relative Risk Ratio Findings:

• Excellent Positive Predictive Powers• Limited Negative Predictive Powers at cutoffs of 65 and

60• Excellent False Positive Rate• At expenses of sensitivity

• Lower cutoffs will improve sensitivity• Need to hold False positive rate low

Discussion•Future Directions

• Expand Other groups and break down between occupations

• Follow up on those found fit• Track down premployment MMPI-2-RFs of these individuals

using the mmpi-2-rf in fitness- for-duty evaluations of police and

Documents