Thisisthepublishedversion:

Lough, Jonathan and Von Treuer, Kathryn 2013, A critical review of psychological instruments
used in police officer selection, Policing, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 737751.

AvailablefromDeakinResearchOnline:

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059560



Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner.

Copyright : 2013, Emerald Group Publishing

Acriticalreviewofpsychological
instrumentsusedinpolice
officerselection
JonathanLoughandKathrynVonTreuer
Psychology,DeakinUniversity,Burwood,Victoria,Australia

Abstract
PurposeThepurposeofthispaperistocriticallyexaminetheinstrumentsusedinthescreening
process,withparticularattentiongiventosupportingresearchvalidation.Psychologicalscreeningis
awellestablishedprocessusedintheselectionofemployeesacrosspublicsafetyindustries,
particularlyinpolicesettings.Screeninginandscreeningoutarebothpossible,withscreeningout
beingthemostcommonlyusedmethod.Littleattention,however,hasbeengiventoevaluatingthe
comparativevaliditiesoftheinstrumentsused.
Design/methodology/approachThisreviewinvestigatesliteraturesupportingtheuseofthe
MinnesotaMultiphasicPersonalityInventory(MMPI),theCaliforniaPersonalityInventory(CPI),the
InwaldPersonalityInventory(IPI),theAustralianInstituteofForensicPsychologystestbattery
(AIFP),andsomeotherlessresearchedtests.Researchsupportingthevalidityofeachtestis
discussed.
FindingsItwasfoundthatnotestpossessesunequivocalresearchsupport,althoughtheCPIand
AIFPtestsshowpromise.Mostformalresearchintothevalidityoftheinstrumentslacksappropriate
experimentalstructureandisthereforelesspowerfulasevidenceoftheutilityofthe
instrument(s).
PracticalimplicationsThisresearchraisesthenotionthatmanycurrentscreeningpracticesare
likelytobeaddingminimalvaluetotheselectionprocessbywayofusinginstrumentsthatarenot
cutoutforthejob.Thishasimplicationsforpolicyandpracticeattherecruitmentstageofpolice
employment.
Originality/valueThisresearchprovidesacriticaloverviewoftheinstrumentsandtheirvalidity
studiesratherthanexaminingthegeneralprocessofpsychologicalscreening.Assuch,itisusefulto
thoseworkinginselectionwhoarefacingthechoiceofpsychologicalinstrument.Possibilitiesfor
futureresearcharepresented,anddevelopmentopportunitiesforabestpracticeinstrumentare
discussed.

KeywordsManagement,Selection,Psychology,Screening,Validity

PapertypeLiteraturereview

Generalpractice:psychologicalscreeninginparamilitarysettings
Policeandsimilarorganizationsaroundtheworldfacethechallengeofselectingapplicantswhowill
becomesuccessfulonthejobperformers.Societyexpectspoliceofficers(andotherpublicsafety
personnel,suchasfirefightersandcorrectionalofficers)tobehaveaccordingtocertainstandards.
Thenatureofpolicingmakesthejobdangerous,whilealsoprovidingofficerswithuniqueauthority.
Itisgenerallyacknowledgedthatpsychologicalscreening,orprofiling,asapersonnelselection
processfortheseorganizationsisaviablemeansofassessingcandidatesforemployment.Job
personfitisparticularlyimportantinapublicsafetyposition.Useofprofilingforselectioninthe
policeindustryiswellestablished,particularlyintheUSA(Guller,1993,1994a;Ho,2001;White,
2008).Thebenefitsofprofilingincludereducedstaffturnoveranddecreasedlikelihoodofpoorjob
performance,whichleadtoconsiderablefinancialbenefit(e.g.Choy,1998).However,the
instrumentsusedforprofiling,andtheprocessesandresearchrelatedtousingthem,needtobe

validinorderforthemtoservetheirpurpose.Itistheaimofthisreviewtoexaminetheinstruments
usedinthescreeningprocesswiththeaimofidentifyingwhichinstrument,ifany,providesthe
greatestbenefitfortheselectionprocess.
Itshouldbenotedthatthevastmajorityofresearchinthisfieldhasbeenconductedwithpolice
officersandpolicecandidates;assuch,thisreviewwillfocusonresearchfrompolicerelatedstudies.
Researchinvolvingotherjurisdictionsdoesexistforexample,Loughetal.(2007)examinedthe
differencesbetweenscreenedandunscreenedcorrectionalofficersjobperformances.However,as
themainbodyofworkrelatestopolicework,thisreviewwillbeconfinedtothediscussionofthat
sphere.Thisissupportedbytheargumentthatpolicerelatedfindingsmaybepartlygeneralizableto
otherjurisdictions(e.g.Barretetal.,1999;Brough,2005).

Howpsychologicalscreeningworks
Thebenefitsofpsychologicalscreeningthatgoesbeyondthestraightforwardinterviewprocessare
wellestablished(Blau,1994).Objectivepsychologicalassessmentreducesriskfromphenomena
suchasinterviewerbias,interinterviewdisagreement,andhaloeffects.Thecapacityof
standardizedinstrumentstoallowbenchmarkingtoanappropriatenormativepopulationfurther
increasestheirusefulness.
Theoperationalaspectsofpsychologicalassessmentarewelldocumented(e.g.Murphyand
Davidshofer,1994).Essentially,theprocessinvolvestheadministrationofoneormorevalid
psychologicaltestsinordertoassessapersonssuitabilitytoataskorsituation.Thetestsfindings
areevaluatedbyapsychologist,wholooksforevidenceormarkersintherespondentsprofilethat
suggestsuitabilityorunsuitabilityforaparticularrole.Psychologicalscreeninginanappliedsetting
isthepracticalapplicationofsuchassessmentsthetestee(anapplicanttothepolicedepartment)
undertakestheassessmentaspartoftheirapplication.Theresultingdataandreportarethenused
bypolicepsychologiststoassistindeterminingthesuitabilityoftheapplicantforpoliceduties.
Testingusuallyinvolvestheadministrationofaformalinstrument(suchastheMinnesota
MultiphasicPersonalityInventory(MMPI))and,inmostcases,aninterview(oftenwitha
psychologist;Blau,1994).Thisreviewfocussesonthefirstpartofthisprocesstheformal
instrument.Thefunctionalgoalofthescreeningprocessisanimportantelementinpsychological
screening.Comparingthedifferentmethodsofscreeningin(selectionbasedondesirabletraits)vs
screeningout(eliminationbasedonundesirabletraits)isanimportantissue.Itisacknowledged
(e.g.HoggandWilson,1995;Meieretal.,1988)thatscreeninginisamoredifficultprocess.
However,itisgenerallysuggestedthatbothapproachesshouldbeusedintandemforoptimal
resultsinthepoliceenvironment(e.g.Hensonetal.,2010;Metchik,1999).Measuresfocussedon
detectingpathology,suchastheMMPI,aremoreusefulasscreenoutmechanisms,whilesome
personalityinstrumentsandscalesparticularlythosemeasuringdesirableorpositivetraitsare
potentiallysuitedtoscreeningin(e.g.Guller,2003).
Thetimingofpsychologicalassessmentsinapotentialemployeesapplicationprocessisan
importantvariablethatcandifferaccordingtonationallaws.Forexample,intheUSA,the
introductionoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActin1992effectivelyeliminatedpurepre
employmentscreeningusingtestsofpsychopathology(suchastheMMPI).Thishasresultedinthese
testsbecomingadministrableonlyonceaconditionalofferofemploymenthasbeenmade.Thishas
hinderedresearchintotheeffectivenessofmanyinstrumentsthatuseAmericanpolicesamples,and
hasreducedthereturnoninvestment(ROI)benefitsconferredbytesting(WeissandInwald,2010).
Bycontrast,nosuchlegalrequirementexistsinAustralia,wherepsychologicalscreeningisgenerally
consideredastandardcomponentofthepreemploymentselectionprocess.
Theusefulnessofaninstrumentinthescreeningprocessultimatelyfocussesononecentral
question:howwelldoestheinstrumentpredictperformanceparticularlypoorperformance?The
answertothisquestionliesintheresearchsurroundingtheinstrument.Thisreviewwillnowfocus
onthemostfrequentlyusedinstruments,andwillcriticallyexaminetheresearchunderpinningtheir
useinappliedsettings.Thereaderwillnotethatsingleinstruments,suchastheMMPI,are

comparedwithtestbatteriessuchastheMatrixPredictiveUniformLawEnforcementSelection
Evaluation(MPULSE)andAustralianInstituteofForensicPsychology(AIFP)system.Whilethismay
seemunfaironthesurfaceabattery,orsuiteoftests,shouldlogicallycovermoregroundthana
singleinstrumentthecomparisonisvalidonthebasisofcurrentpractices.Thatis,manypolice
departmentsusesingleinstrumentssuchastheMMPIasthesolepsychologicalscreeningtool
(Aamodt,2010);itisthereforefairtocomparesingleinstrumentswithtestbatteries.

TheMMPI
Instrumentoverview
TheMMPIhasbeenusedinmorepolicerelatedselectionresearchthananyotherinstrument
(Aamodt,2004).TheoriginalMMPIwasdesignedin1940asameasureofpsychological
maladjustmentforassessingpatientsseekingpsychiatrichelp(Butcher,2005).Thetestwasrevised
in1989andreissuedastheMMPI2.Bothversionsconsistof567itemstowhichtherespondentis
requiredtoindicateeithertrueorfalse.Theinstrumentstenclinicalscalesmeasurevarious
typesofpathology.AnyTscore(standardizedscore)above70(orabove65intheMMPI2)
indicatesthelikelihoodofpsychologicalmaladjustment.Threeothernonclinicalscalesindicatehow
honestthesubjectwasinansweringthequestions.Thesescalesseektoindicateiftherespondent
wasattemptingtoappearbetteradjustedthanheorsheactuallywas(fakinggood);was
manufacturingorexaggeratingsymptoms(fakingbad,ormalingering);orwasrespondingcandidly.
Morerecently,anumberofRestructuredClinical(RC)scalesweredevelopedtocorrectforsome
overlapintheoriginalclinicalscales(Graham,2006).ThiswasfollowedbytheMMPI2Restructured
Form(RF).Consistingof338items,thisisdescribedasmorestatisticallyrigorousandisconsidered
tobebasedonwellestablishedtheoreticalmodelsofpersonalityandpathology(BenPorathand
Tellegen,2008).Atthisstage,theRCscalesandtheMMPI2RFhavehadminimalresearchattention
inthefieldofpoliceapplicantscreening(Sellbometal.,2007).

EarlyreviewsofMMPIresearch
BurbeckandFurnham(1985)reviewedfivestudiesontheMMPIandpoliceselectionconducted
between1964and1980.Theyconcludedthatithasnotbeenpossible[y]toshowwhether
psychologicaltesting[theMMPI]candiscriminatebetweenpoliceofficersandmembersofthe
public,orbetweengoodandbadpoliceofficers[y]psychologicaltestingmaybeusefulforselecting
outpeoplesufferingfromsomementalabnormality.Similarly,inreviewing18studiesonthe
MMPI,Simmersetal.(2003,p.287)notedthattheMMPIwasoriginallydesignedtopredict
psychopathologyandsubsequentlydoesnotappeartobeausefulgaugeforidentifyingcertain
behaviorsinthelesspathologicalrange.Theyarguedthatmanyskillsthatareessentialforsuccess
asapoliceofficermaygoundetected.
Ametaanalysisthatincludedover300studiesofMMPIresearchdatabyAamodt(2004)observed
thatcorrelationsbetweenMMPIscalesandmeasuresofacademyandpatrolperformancewerelow,
andthatthemajoritywerenotstatisticallysignificant.CorrelationsbetweenMMPIscalesand
disciplineproblemsandcommendationsalsoshowednocorrelation.Aamodtconcludedthat
becausetheFscaleiscomprisedofitemsfromtheotherclinicalscalesandbecauseitis
significantlyrelatedtobothacademyperformance(R+0.11)andsupervisorratingsofperformance
(R=0.09),itisprobablythemostusefulindividualMMPIscale(p.94).Thisconclusionsaysagreat
dealabouttheutilityoftheotherscales.Whilethesecorrelationsmaybestatisticallysignificant,
theyareverysmalltheFscaleaccountsforlessthan1percentofthevarianceofsupervisor
ratingsofperformance.Thus,thescalesareunlikelytobeofanyclinicalorpracticalassistance.

MoredetailedexaminationofMMPIresearch
WhileAamodts(2004)metaanalysisprovidedarelativelyrecenttechnicaloverviewofMMPIdata,
amorequalitativereviewofMMPIresearch,itself,iswarranted.WeissandWeiss(2010a)discussed
thegeneralstateofMMPIresearch,andconcludedthattheMMPIhasmuchtooffertothe

disciplineofpolicepsychology.However,theystatedthattheMMPIisnotrecommendedasa
standaloneforscreening,butitcanbeusedinconjunctionwithotheroneormoreother
instruments(p.69).Thisstatementappearscongruentwiththebulkofpublishedliterature.This
reviewwillnowdiscussarepresentativesampleofMMPIrelatedresearch.Acompletely
comprehensivediscussionofallrelevantstudies,giventhesizeoftheliteraturebase,isbeyondthe
scopeofthispaper.
Inconclusivestudies.ManystudiesexaminingtheefficacyoftheMMPIasaselectiontoolhave
yieldednegativeorinconclusivefindings.Azenetal.(1973)studied100newlyhiredsheriffsinLos
Angeles,andconcludedthatMMPIscoreswereunsuccessfulinpredictingdropouts.Researchby
Schoenfeldetal.(1980)andMerianetal.(1980)comparedgroupsofproblempoliceperformers
withacontrolgroup.NosignificantdifferencesbetweentheMMPIprofilesofthetwogroupswere
detectedineitherstudy.DralleandBaybrook(1985)usedasimilarapproachandreportedsimilar
resultsnosignificantMMPIscalecorrelationswerepresentamonganyperformancecriteriafor
thesampleof356policeapplicants.
Inwald(1988)used16predictorvariables,includingavarietyofpsychologicaltests,aswellasclinical
judgmentsstudiedinvaryingcombinations.Thesewereappliedto219publicsafetyofficerswho
hadremainedonthejobforfiveyears.Amongthatgroup,28werefiredforcause.Inthiscase,
clinicalinterpretationoftheMMPIwastheleastaccuratepredictorofperformanceissues.A
computergeneratedpredictionofterminationorretentionbasedonearlierMMPIresearch
(Shusmanetal.,1984)misidentifiedthegreatestpercentageofapparentlysuccessfulofficersby
predictingtheywouldbeterminated.Thismethodincorrectlyrejected36percentofthegroupof
219(78individuals)aTypeOneerror.
OtherstudieshavefocussedonmorespecificaspectsoftheperformanceofMMPIscales.Hargrave
etal.(1988)foundnopredictiveutilityonaderivedaggressionindex,asdevelopedfromthree
MMPIscales.SimilarfindingsfromacommensuratemethodologywerereportedbyCastoraetal.
(2003).Costelloetal.(1996)examineddisciplinarysuspensiondaysamongservingpoliceofficers,
andfounda0.223correlationwiththeF+Pd+Mascale.Theyconcludedthattherelationship
appearsunimpressive(p.302)andthatfurtherconstructvalidationisnecessarytodeterminethe
potentialusefulnessoftheindex.
DanielsandKing(2002)notedthatMMPIscaleswereunabletomakeanydistinctionbetween
successfulandunsuccessfulperformers,asdeterminedbysupervisorratings.Bartoletal.(1992)
reportedthattheMMPIwasnotastrongpredictorofselfreportedstress.Byusingperformance
ratingsandMMPItocompareapplicantsintwomajorUScities,Winters(1990)concludedthatthere
wasnocorrelationbetweentestsscoresandjobperformance.Thesameconclusionwasreachedby
Wrightetal.(1990),whostudiedpoliceperformanceattheendofa14weektrainingcourse.
Surretteetal.(2004)cametoasimilarconclusion.TheyexaminedMMPIspecialscalescoresand
supervisorratingsof129experiencedpoliceofficers,anddeclaredthatscoresontheGood
Cop/BadCop,HusemannIndex,GoldbergIndex,andGonderIndexwerenotsignificantlyrelatedto
supervisorratings(p.71).
Studieswithpositivefindings.Alargenumberofstudieshavereportedpositivedataregardingthe
MMPIsabilitytoaddpredictivepowertopoliceselection.However,manyofthesestudieshad
designissuesthatunderminedanyresearchevidenceoftheMMPIsutility.Thissectionpresentsa
representativeselectionofthesestudies.
Severalauthors(e.g.Bartol,1982;Bernsteinetal.,1982)reportedsignificantfindingsthatwere
basedonstatisticalcalculationsofrawscores.Thisstudymethodcanbemisleadingbecause,inthe
actualpracticeofMMPIinterpretation,rawscoresareneverused.Interpretationofthetestresults
isalwaysundertakenfromthescaledscores,asthebodyofvalidityresearchsupportingtheMMPIis
allbasedonscalednotrawscores(Butcher,2005).Further,inthesestudies,whenthereported
rawscoreswereconvertedtoTscores,thestatisticallysignificantdifferencesdisappeared,andthe
meanTscoreswereallinthenormalrange.Thismadeitimpossibletoobtainanyclinical
differences.Bernsteinetal.(1982)reportedfollowupdataon120policewhocompletedtheMMPI

priortobeingemployed.SignificantcorrelationsbetweenMMPIrawscoresandfieldperformance
werereported.However,whentherawscoreswereconvertedtoTscores,allwereintheaverage
range.Undertheseconditions,itisunlikelythatapsychologistusingthetestforscreening
applicantswouldfindanymeaningfuldata.
Bartol(1982)administeredtheMMPIto102malepoliceapplicantsand,usingrawscores,reported
astatisticallysignificantelevationonfiveMMPIscalesforthoseofficersratedbelowaverage
throughsupervisorperformanceratings.Whentherawscoresforeachofthethreegroupsofpolice
weretranslatedtoTscores,allwereintheaveragerange,whicheliminatedtheabilityto
differentiatebetweenthegroups.Thissuggeststhatalloftheapplicantslookednormalaccording
totheusualcriteriaoftestinterpretation.
SimilarissueswerepresentinBartols(1991)investigationof600policeofficers.Bartolfoundthat
officerswhowereelevatedonthePd(PsychopathicDeviate),Ma(Hypomania),orL(Lie)scales
werelaterdescribedasimmaturebysupervisors.
Combiningthesethreescoresresultedinanimmaturityindex;however,therewasnodescriptionof
whatconstitutedanelevatedscore.Thedifferenceinimmaturityscoresbetweenthosewhowere
terminatedorforcedtoresignandthosewhoretainedemploymentwasdescribedashighly
significant.However,whenthereportedrawscoreswereconvertedtoTscores,thedifferences
betweenthetwogroupsdisappeared,andallsubjectsscoredwithintheaveragerange.Therefore,
theindexappearstohavelittleornoclinicalutility.
Severalstudies(e.g.Beutleretal.,1985;HiattandHargrave,1988ab)reportedstatistically
significantintergroupdifferencesbetweenoneormorescoresonMMPIscales,withthesuggestion
thatsuchfindingsshowtheMMPIcandiscriminatebetweengoodandpoorperformers.Upon
inspection,itwasnotedthattwoissuesrecurredinthesestudies.First,thedifferencesinscale
scoresweresosmallthattheywouldbeunhelpfulintheactualtaskofscreeningpoliceapplicants.
Second,despitethedifferences,thescoresforgoodandpoorperformerswereentirelywithinthe
normalrange.SaxeandReiser(1976)acknowledgedthislatterdifficultyinpracticalapplication.
Theyreportedsignificantdifferencesbetweenseveralgroups,butaddedthatthesedifferencesare
allwithinthenormalrangeandaretoosmall[y]tohavemeaningfulutilityinclinical
differentiationofsuccessfulandunsuccessfulpoliceapplicants(p.424).
Somestudies(e.g.HookeandKrauss,1971;Blauetal.,1993;BrewsterandStoloff,1999)reported
positivefindingsfortheMMPIandpoliceselectionbyusingsamplesofalreadyemployedofficers.
Theproblemwiththisapproachwasthatthosewhohadbeenhiredrepresentedavery
homogeneousgroupbydefinition,thestudysubjectsshouldhavebeenthebestofthebest.
Furthermore,thelongerthesesubjectshadbeenemployedaspoliceofficers,thelesslikelyitwas
thattheyrepresentednewapplicants.Researchthatusesthismethodhasutilityonlyifthefindings
arereplicatedwithastudyofpoliceapplicants.
Sellbometal.(2007)acknowledgedtheselflimitingnatureofusinganalreadyemployedpolice
sample,andsubsequentlycorrectedtheiranalysistocompensateforthisrangerestriction.The
resultinganalysisindicatedmoderatepredictiveabilityofcertainMMPIscales(RCscales),andlower
thannormalTscoreelevations.AsimilarmethodwasadoptedbyCaillouetetal.(2010)intheir
examinationofthePSY5scalesandfacets.Adichotomousoutcomevariable(ceasedemploymentvs
stillemployed)wasusedasthepredictedmeasure.Modestpredictivepowerwasfound,albeitwith
caveats(rangerestrictionsandscoresmodifiedbyimpressionmanagementlevels),andtheauthors
acknowledgedthattheirmodelsfindingsdidnotrepresentaclearlysignificantadvancefor
predictinglawenforcementofficerperformance(p.236).
MMPIresearchhasalsousedPoliceAcademyperformanceasanoutcomemeasure.
ProblemswiththisapproachhavebeennotedbyKleimanandGordon(1986),whoobservedthat
thisresearchreliesontrainingperformanceasavalidationmeasure.Theauthorsdiscussedalarge
numberofrelevantlegalcases,andnotedthatvirtuallyallcasesjudgedthattherewasinsufficient
evidencetosubstantiatethevalidityoftheselectiondevice(p.93).Burkhart(1980)agreed,noting
thattrainingacademydatacannotbeconsideredanidealchoiceforcriteriabecausesuchdatado

notinvolvetheofficersresponsestotherealjobdemands(p.123).Anumberofstudiesbased
uponMMPIandtrainingperformancefacedtheissuedescribedabove(e.g.GonderandGilmore,
2004;Gough,1950;Hargraveetal.,1986;InwaldandShusman,1984).
Macintyreetal.(2001)usedasophisticatedmethodtodevelopaframeworktopredictproblem
performersamongpoliceofficers.Ascalecombinationandrecalculationmodelwasconstructed
fromexistingMMPIdata.Thesampleincludedtwomatchedgroupsofmaleofficers.Onegroup
consistedofproblematicperformers,andtheothergrouphadnoindicationsofpoorperformance.
Thestudyspredictivemodelwasmoresuccessfulinidentifyingproblemperformersthangood
performers,despitethefactthatallcaseswereclassifiedbythatdichotomy.Themodelappearedto
findaddedvalueresidingintheMMPIdata,whichcouldbeusefulatthepersonnellevel.In
practicalterms,thiswouldrequiresubmittingeachMMPIprofiletoarelativelycomplexmodel
developedfromafewscales.Whilecumbersome,thismethodhaspromiseforresearchwithpolice
applicants.

TheCaliforniaPsychologicalInventory(CPI)andtheInwaldPersonalityInventory(IPI)
CPI:instrumentoverviewandreviewofresearch
TheCPIsharesalmosthalf(194)ofits434itemswiththeMMPI.However,thisisfocussedon
commonpersonalityfactors,ratherthanpsychopathology.Itemsaretrueorfalse,andthe
instrumentisscoredon18scales(threeofwhicharetesttakingvalidityscales).Duetoitsshared
heritagewiththeMMPI,andageneralpredispositionamongpractitionerstoprefertheMMPI,
muchCPIresearchtendstobementionedalongsideMMPIstudies.ThishasresultedinCPIandits
potentialcontributiontopoliceselectionreceivingdilutedattention.
Ingeneral,CPIrelatedresearchmimicsthebodyofresearchusingtheMMPI;someresearchers
reportsignificantrelationshipsbetweenCPIscalesandaspectsofpoliceperformance,whileother
researchersdonot.Pugh(1985)andHogan(1971)bothreportedthatseveraloftheCPIscaleswere
significantlycorrelatedwithavarietyofperformancemeasures,includingevaluationsbyfield
commanders.However,Hargrave(1985)andSarchioneetal.(1998)werenotsuccessfulinlinking
CPIscaleswithaspectsofpoliceperformance.
Aamodts(2004,2010)landmarkmetaanalysisofpolicepsychologyselectiondatashowedsome
supportfortheCPIspredictivevalidity.Aamodtsanalysisalsorevealedthatanumberofscales
werepredictiveofacademyperformance.ThesescalesincludedIntellectualEfficiencyandCapacity
forStatus.However,thetolerancescalewasparticularlypredictive.Aamodtnotedthatthe
tolerancescaleseemstoprovidethebestcombinationofpredictingsupervisorratingsof
performance,disciplinaryproblems,andacademyperformance(Aamodt,2010,p.240).

IPI:instrumentoverviewandreviewofresearch
TheIPIisa310item(trueorfalse)inventorydesignedtoassessarangeofbehaviouraland
personalitycharacteristics.Theinventoryhasafocusonadmittedbehaviourpatterns,suchas
troublewiththelaw,anddrugandalcoholuse.SimilartotheMMPI,italsoassessesother
personalitycharacteristicsandclinicalindicatorsofpsychopathology(Inwald,2010).
ResearchsupportforthepredictivevalidityoftheIPIasapoliceselectiontoolislimited.Inwald
(2010)assertedthattheIPIisabenchmarkfornewertestsintheselectionfield[y]theIPIhas
demonstratedthatitidentifiesantisocialbehaviorpatternsandisausefulpredictorofpoliceand
publicsafetyofficerjobperformance(p.91).PositivefindingshavebeenreportedbyDetrickand
Chibnall(2002)whostatedthatsomeoftheIPIscalesnotably,familyconflicts,guardedness,and
drivingviolationswerepredictiveofonthejobperformanceattheoneyearevaluationpoint.
Similarly,Inwald(1988)reportedthattheIPIwasaccurateinidentifyingwhichapplicants(afterone
yearofperformance)werelikelytobeterminated.However,ahighfalsepositiverate(36percent)
aTypeOneerrorwasalsonoted.
OtherresearchershavereportedmixedfindingswiththeIPI.Cortinaetal.(1992)administeredthe
IPI(andtheMMPI)tonewlyhiredpoliceofficers.Ignoringtheproblemofrangerestriction(thatis,

theyassumedthatsuccessfulapplicantswerethebestofthebest),theIPI,althoughadequately
measuringtheBigFivepersonalitydimensions,addedlittletonoincrementalvalidity(abovethe
entryexams)forarangeofperformancemeasures,includingacademyperformanceandturnover.
Similarly,MufsonandMufson(1998)observedthatfouroftheIPIsscaleswerepredictiveofpoor
performanceratingsandeventualtermination;however,asmallsamplesize(n=33)andtherange
restrictionagainlimitedthestudysgeneralizability.

Otherpublishedtests
Asmallgroupofotherpsychologicalinstrumentshavealsobeenappliedtothepoliceselection
environment.ThePersonalityAssessmentInventory(PAI)hasbeenusedinanumberofstudies,with
varyingdegreesofsuccess.WeissandWeiss(2010b)discussedthePAIindetail,andreportedthat,
whilesomescales,suchastheInterpersonalandTreatmentscalesshowedconsiderablepotential
(p.87),muchresearchremainstobedone,particularlyconcerningthecriterionvalidityofsomeof
theclinicalscales.Moreover,thePAIisfundamentallyatestofpsychopathology,andhasmany
similaritiestotheMMPI,whichismuchmorewidelyused(Super,2006).AswiththeMMPI,there
remainstheissueofusingatestofpsychopathologyinsteadofassessingnormalornonclinical
aspectsofpersonalitythatmayhaveasignificanteffectonjobperformance.
TheMPULSEisamorerecentlydevelopedinstrument,whichwasfirstintroducedin2008(Davis
suchastheMMPIand16PF,andassessesarangeofattitudesandbeliefsspecificallyrelatedto
policeemploymentduties.Initialresearchsuggeststhatthistestmayhavepromiseforpolice
selectionpurposes(DavisandRostow,2010);however,muchmoreresearchisrequiredbeforethis
instrumentcanbeconsideredempiricallyvalidated.

TheAIFPtestbattery
Instrumentoverview
TheAIFPprofilingsystemisacollectionofinstrumentsthathavebeencombinedandadministered
byAIFPsincetheearly1990s.ItsancestortheIFPprofilingsystemhasbeenusedwithsuccessin
theUSA,withsomesuccesssupportedbyresearch(Guller,1994b;Guller,2003).TheAIFPsystem
consistsofsixseparatepsychologicaltests:
.CandidateandOfficerPersonnelSurvey(COPS):atestdesignedbyAIFP,viaresearch,for
thespecificpurposeofselectingpublicsafetyofficerapplicants.Thiscomponentisthe
flagshipofthetestbattery.Scalesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,factorssuchaslegal
difficulties,alcoholanddruguse,aggression,andimpulsivity.
.EdwardsPersonalPreferenceSchedule(EPPS):abroadmeasureofpersonalitythat
assessescharacteristicsdirectlyrelatedtopoliceperformance.Scalesincludefactorssuchas
aggression,needtodominateothers,capacitytolearnfrommistakes,abilitytofitintoa
team,andabilitytotolerateroutinetasks.
.LocusofControl(LOC):ameasureoftheextenttowhichapersonfeelsincontrolofhisor
herlife.Thisisadefactomeasureofmaturity.
.HowSuperviseScale(HS):ameasureofjudgmentininterpersonalsituations,and
awarenessofbehavioralsensitivitywhendealingwithothers.
.ShipleyInstituteofLivingScale:astandardized,wellresearchedtestofgeneralintelligence.
.TheOpinionSurvey:ameasurethatassessesattitudestowardenforcingthelaw,ranging
frombeingrigidandunyieldingtobeingsoftandnaive.

Thefulltestconsistsof540items,withamixoftrueorfalseitems,forcedchoiceitems,andLikert
scaleitems.Itisintendedtobeusedasascreenouttool.

ReviewofAIFPresearch
SmythandByrne(1994)appliedtheAIFPprofilingsystemto51VictorianPolicerecruitsontheirfirst
dayattheVictorianTrainingAcademy,andfoundthattheAIFPpredictionsweresignificantly

accurateinpredictingtraineesperformancecategories.Theyalsofoundthat,overtime,the
predictionsweresignificantlyaccurateindeterminingrecruitssickleaveandtheirlikelihoodof
beinginvolvedininvestigationsbytheInternalInvestigationsUnit(IIU).Thatis,priortocommencing
training,thesystemwasabletosuccessfullypredictanddistinguishbetweengoodandpoor
performers,highandlowsickleaveusers,andrecruitshighandlowlikelihoodsofbeinginvolvedin
IIUinvestigations.
Morerecently,LoughandRyan(2005,2006)examinedtheperformanceofAIFPscreenedand
unscreenedpoliceconstablesafteroneyearofservice.Thescreenedgroupdemonstrablyout
performedtheunscreenedgroupacrossmostperformancevariables.Thescreenedgrouptook11
percentlesssickleave,had58percentlessinjuryclaims,were84percentlesslikelytohavebeenin
amotorvehicleaccidentwhiledrivingapolicecar,andweremorethanthreetimeslesslikelyto
incurcomplaintsfromthegeneralpublic.
LoughandRyan(2010)furtherextendedtheirexaminationofpolicecohortsoveraperiodofthree
years.TheAIFPscreenedgroupconsistentlyoutperformedtheunscreenedgroup;theAIFPgroup
tooksignificantlylesssickdays,hadsignificantlyfewernonstress(injury)claims,andhad
significantlylessmotorvehicleaccidents.Additionally,thescreenedgrouphadalowerdropoutrate,
andwerelesslikelytomakeseriousonthejoberrorsthatresultedinformaldisciplinaryactionor
investigation.However,aswiththeearlierstudies,individualofficerperformanceratings(e.g.
supervisorreports)werenottakenintoaccount.
OtherresearchsupportingthevalidityoftheAIFPprofilingsysteminAustralianconditionshasbeen
conductedinthecorrectionscontext.Choy(1998)comparedNewSouthWales(NSW)corrections
officersscreenedforselectionbytheAIFPbatterywithanunscreenedgroup,andreported
significantlylowerratesofattritionandsickleaveusageamongtheAIFPscreenedcohortaftertwo
yearsofservice.ChoyestimatedthattheNSWcorrectionsdepartmentsickleavecosthadreduced
by39percentasaresultofthescreening.
SimilarfindingswerereportedamongQueensland(Byrne,2001)andSouthAustraliancorrections
officers(Caseyetal.,2001),withscreenedofficerstakingapproximatelyhalfthenumberofsickdays
oftheirunscreenedcounterpartsduringtheirfirsttwoyearsofemployment.ROIcalculationsupon
Caseyetal.sdatarevealedamonetarysavingofover$850,000foraninitialoutlayof$22,500an
ROIfigureof3,815percent.
Loughetal.(2007)trackedthesickleaveoftwocohortsofcorrectionalofficers(AIFPscreenedand
unscreened)overafouryearperiod.Theyfoundthatthescreenedgrouptooksignificantlylesssick
leaveineachofthefirsttwoyears,and30percentlessintotalacrossthefouryearsofthestudy.
Theyalsonotedasignificantlylowerdropout(terminationsplusresignations)amongtheAIFP
screenedgroup.Theauthorsconcludedthatpsychologicalprofilingasamethodofselecting
correctionalofficersappearstobeaworthwhileandvalidcourseofaction(Loughetal.,2007,p.6).
Byrneetal.(2002)summativeinvestigationofAIFPtestingwithinthecorrectionscontextreinforced
theutilityoftheprocessanditsassociatedfinancialbenefits.Forexample,theyfoundthatadeeper
analysisofChoys(1998)datarevealedthatthescreeningprocessyieldedareturnoninvestmentof
approximately3,000percent.Inadditiontomonetarybenefits,thereareotherbenefitsthatare
difficulttoquantifythosederivedfromhiringthemostsuitablecandidatesforthejob,which
improvesstaffmoraleandgeneralefficiency,andreducesthelikelihoodoffuturelegalaction.

FurtherexaminationofAIFPresearch
TheresearchevidencefortheAIFPtestdiffersfromagreatdealofresearchofothertests,
particularlytheMMPI,becauseofthefrequentpresenceofcontrolgroupsthatallowfordirect
comparisonbetweenselectedandnonselectedcohorts.Inmostpreviousstudies,thecontrol
groupswerehiredimmediatelypriortotheintroductionofthepsychologicalscreeningprogram
(and,therefore,thecommencementoftheexperimentalgroup),whichtendedtomitigateany
potentialmaturationbasedresearchartifacts.Thisapproachisparticularlystrongforexaminingthe
effectofthetestasawhole,andalsoallowsforlongitudinalobservation.

AlthoughresearchsupportingthegeneralvalidityoftheAIFPappearssound,thereisnopublished
evidenceofanyincrementalvalidity.Noneoftheindividualcomponents,oranyofthesubscales
withinthosecomponents,havebeenlinkedorcorrelatedwithperformanceoutcomes.Such
researchwouldbevaluablegiventhatthemajorityofscalebasedresearchfortheMMPIandCPI
tendstodivergeonthepredictivevalidityofindividualscales(althoughAamodts,2004findingthat
thetolerancescaleoftheCPIisavalidpredictorisnoted).
Inadditiontotheabove,oneotherfactorconfoundstheAIFPfindings.Researchtodatehasbeen
drawnfromboththeAIFP(Australian)andIFP(American)data.Whilethetwoinstrumentshavea
lotofcommoncontentincludingtheCOPStesttheyarenotthesameinstrument.Research
evidencesupportingtheIFPtestinstrumentdoesnotnecessarilyapplytothepotentialvalidationof
theAIFPtestinstrument,andviceversa.Futureresearchneedstoconcentrateitseffortsona
particulariterationofthetestbattery.

Discussionanddevelopmentopportunity
Fromthematerialpresentedinthispaper,itisapparentthatnobestpracticeinstrumentforthe
selectionofpoliceofficersexistsatthistime.Eachoftheinstrumentsexaminedhaveissuesintheir
supportingresearch.TheMMPIresearchisequivocalatbest,researchwiththeCPIandIPIislimited,
andtheAIFPresearchlacksscalelevelincrementalvalidity.Otherinstruments,suchasthePAIand
MPULSE,aresimplynotusedoftenenoughtogeneratetheresearchrequiredtounderpintheir
endorsement.
Therefore,itappearsthatthereisopportunityforthedevelopmentofabestpracticeinstrument.
Researchdevotedtothisdevelopmentneedstoconsiderthefactorsthatensuretheutilityand
validityoftheinstrumentscreationandtesting.Futureresearchshouldensure:
.thedevelopmentofaninstrumentthatcanassessaswidearangeofattitudesand
behaviorsasisreasonable,ratherthanbeingfocussedsolelyonpathologies;
.asufficientsamplesize(>100);
.thatappropriateoutcomevariables,suchasonthejobperformance,areobtainedin
additiontoperformanceduringtraining(e.g.academyperformance);
.thatacontrolgroupormatchedcohortiscomparedtoanygroupselectedusinga(new)
instrument;and
.thatallcomponentsofaninstrument,downtothescalelevel,areadequatelyinvestigated
andexaminedforvalidationpurposes.

Othercriteria,suchastheexaminationofnonsuccessfulapplicantstestscores,shouldalsobe
considered(althoughthismaynotbefeasibleinAmericanjurisdictionsduetotheAmericanswith
DisabilitiesAct).Ultimately,theidealinstrumentwouldbeatestthatispurposebuiltforpolice
selection,ratherthanatestthathasbeenadaptedforuseinthepoliceenvironment.
Ifaninstrumentweretobeselectedasastartingpointforthedevelopmentofabestpractice
instrument,theAIFPtestbatteryappearstobeasoundoption.TheAIFPinstrumentfulfillsmostof
theabovecriteria,withtheexceptionofavailabilityofincrementalvalidationdata.Giventhecurrent
authorsexperiencewiththeAIFPinstrument,itisrecommendedthatathoroughforensic
examinationofthattest,withtheaimofbuildingapsychometricallysoundinstrument,wouldbea
logicallaunchingpadforthedevelopmentofabestpracticeinstrument.

References
Aamodt,M.G.(2004),ResearchinLawEnforcementSelection,BrownwalkerPress,BocaRaton,FL.
Aamodt,M.G.(2010),Predictinglawenforcementofficerperformancewithpersonalityinventories,inWeiss,
P.(Ed.),PersonalityAssessmentinPolicePsychology:A21stCenturyPerspective,CharlesC.Thomas,
Springfield,IL,pp.229259.
Azen,S.P.,Snibbe,H.M.andMontgomery,H.R.(1973),Alongitudinalpredictivestudyofsuccessand
performanceoflawenforcementofficers,JournalofAppliedPsychology,Vol.57No.2,pp.190192.

Barret,G.,Polomsky,M.andMcDaniel,M.(1999),Selectiontestsforfirefighters:acomprehensivereview
andmetaanalysis,JournalofBusinessandPsychology,Vol.13No.4,pp.507514.
Bartol,C.R.(1982),Psychologicalcharacteristicsofsmalltownpoliceofficers,JournalofPoliceScience&
Administration,Vol.10No.1,pp.5863.
Bartol,C.R.(1991),PredictivevalidationoftheMMPIforsmalltownpoliceofficerswhofail,Professional
Psychology,Vol.22No.2,pp.127132.
Bartol,C.R.,Bergen,G.T.,Volckens,J.S.andKnoras,K.M.(1992),Womeninsmalltownpolicing:job
performanceandstress,CriminalJusticeandBehavior,Vol.19No.3,pp.240259.
BenPorath,Y.S.andTellegen,A.(2008),EmpiricalcorrelatesoftheMMPI2RestructuredClinical(RC)scales
inmentalhealth,forensic,andnonclinicalsettings:anintroduction,JournalofPersonalityAssessment,Vol.90
No.2,pp.119121.
Bernstein,I.H.,Schoenfeld,L.S.andCostello,R.M.(1982),Truncatedcomponentregressionmulticollinearity
andtheMMPIsuseinapoliceofficerselectionsetting,MultivariateBehaviorResearch,Vol.17No.1,pp.99
116.
Beutler,L.E.,Storm,A.,Kirkish,P.,Scogin,F.andGaines,J.A.(1985),Parametersinthepredictionofpolice
officerperformance,ProfessionalPsychology,Vol.16No.2,pp.324335.
Blau,T.H.(1994),PsychologicalServicesforLawEnforcement,JohnWileyandSons,NewYork,NY.
Blau,T.H.,Super,J.T.andBrady,L.(1993),TheMMPIgoodcop/badcopprofileinidentifyingdysfunctional
lawenforcementpersonnel,JournalofPoliceandCriminalPsychology,Vol.9No.1,pp.24.
Brewster,J.andStoloff,M.L.(1999),Usingthegoodcop/badcopprofilewiththeMMPI2,JournalofPolice
andCriminalPsychology,Vol.14No.2,pp.2934.
Brough,P.(2005),Acomparativeinvestigationofthepredictorsofworkrelatedpsychologicalwellbeing
withinpolice,fireandambulanceworkers,NewZealandJournalofPsychology,Vol.34No.2,pp.127134.
Burbeck,E.andFurnham,A.(1985),Policeofficerselection:acriticalreviewofliterature,JournalofPolice
Science&Administration,Vol.13No.1,pp.5869.
Burkhart,B.(1980),Conceptualissuesinthedevelopmentofpoliceselectionprocedures,Professional
Psychology,Vol.11No.1,pp.121129.
Butcher,J.N.(2005),ABeginnersGuidetotheMMPI2,2nded.,AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,
Washington,DC.
Byrne,K.(2001),ResearchintotheEffectivenessoftheAIFPCriticalCharacterAssessmentSystemfor
ScreeningNewCustodialCorrectionalOfficers,AIFPAustralia,CliftonHill.
Byrne,K.,Guller,I.andGuller,M.(2002),Slashingsickleave/attritionratesthroughnewrecruitscreening,
CorrectionsToday,Vol.64No.5,pp.9295.
Caillouet,B.,Boccaccini,M.T.,Varela,J.G.,Davis,R.andRostow,C.(2010),PredictivevalidityoftheMMPI2
PSY5scalesandfacetsforlawenforcementofficeremploymentoutcomes,CriminalJusticeandBehavior,
Vol.37No.2,pp.217238.
Casey,S.,Dollard,M.andWinefield,T.(2001),SelectionofCorrectionalServiceOfficers.Work&Stress
ResearchGroup,UniversityofSouthAustralia,Adelaide.
Castora,K.,Brewster,J.andStoloff,M.L.(2003),PredictingaggressioninpoliceofficersusingtheMMPI2,
JournalofPoliceandCriminalPsychology,Vol.18No.1,pp.18.
Choy,J.(1998),ReducingSickLeaveinCorrectionalOfficers:TheRoleofPsychologicalAppraisal,NewSouth
WalesDepartmentofCorrectiveServices,Sydney.
Cortina,J.M.,Doherty,M.L.,Schmitt,N.,Kaufman,G.andSmith,R.G.(1992),Thebigfivepersonality
factorsintheIPIandMMPI:predictorsofpoliceperformance,PersonnelPsychology,Vol.45No.1,pp.119
140.
Costello,R.M.,Schneider,S.L.andSchoenfeld,L.S.(1996),ValidationofapreemploymentMMPIindex
correlatedwithdisciplinarysuspensiondaysofpoliceofficers,Psychology,CrimeandLaw,Vol.2No.1,pp.
299306.
Daniels,S.andKing,E.(2002),ThepredictivevalidityofMMPI2contentscalesforsmalltownpoliceofficer
performance,JournalofPoliceandCriminalPsychology,Vol.17No.2,pp.5460.
Davis,R.andRostow,C.(2008),MPULSEinventory:Matrixpredictiveuniformlawenforcementselection
evaluationinventory.TechnicalManual,MHSInc,Toronto.
Davis,R.andRostow,C.(2010),TheuseoftheMPULSEinventoryinlawenforcementselection,inWeiss,
P.A.(Ed.),PersonalityAssessmentinPolicePsychology:A21stCenturyPerspective,CharlesC.Thomas,
Springfield,IL,pp.528,132158.
Detrick,P.andChibnall,J.(2002),PredictionofpoliceofficerperformancewiththeInwaldpersonality
inventory,JournalofPoliceandCriminalPsychology,Vol.17No.2,pp.917.

Dralle,P.andBaybrook,R.M.(1985),Screeningofpoliceapplicants:areplicationofa5itemMMPIresearch
indexvaliditystudy,PsychologicalReports,Vol.57No.3,pp.10311034.
Gonder,M.andGilmore,D.C.(2004),Validitystudy:personalityprofilesofpoliceofficerswhosuccessfully
completeacademytraining,AppliedHRMResearch,Vol.9No.2,pp.5962.
Gough,H.G.(1950),TheFminusKDissimulationIndexfortheMMPI,JournalofConsultingPsychology,Vol.
33No.1,pp.247255.
Guller,I.(1993),AFollowUpStudyofAppointedPublicSafetyOfficersandRelationshipofPerformanceto
MeasuredPsychologicalVariables,InstituteforForensicPsychology,Oakland,NJ.
Guller,I.(1994a),EvolutionofaBioDataInstrumentfortheScreeningofPoliceandotherPublicSafety
Personnel,InstituteforForensicPsychology,Oakland,NJ.
Guller,I.(1994b),AFollowUpStudyofAppointedPublicSafetyOfficersandRelationshipofPerformanceto
MeasuredPsychologicalVariables,paperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheNewJerseyChiefsofPolice,
AtlanticCity,NJ,June22.
Guller,M.(2003),PredictingPerformanceofLawEnforcementPersonnelusingtheCandidateandOfficer
PersonnelSurveyandotherPsychologicalMeasures,unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,SetonHallUniversity,
SouthOrange,NJ.
Graham,J.R.(2006),MMPI2:AssessingPersonalityandPsychopathology,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,
NY.
Hargrave,G.E.(1985),UsingtheMMPIandCPItoscreenlawenforcementapplicants:astudyofreliability
andvalidityofcliniciansdecisions,JournalofPoliceScienceandAdministration,Vol.13No.3,pp.221224.
Hargrave,G.E.,Hiatt,D.andGaffney,T.W.(1986),AcomparisonofMMPIandCPItestprofilesfortraffic
officersanddeputysheriffs,JournalofPoliceScience&Administration,Vol.14No.3,pp.250258.
Hargrave,G.E.,Hiatt,D.andGaffney,T.W.(1988),F49Cn:anMMPImeasureofaggressioninlaw
enforcementofficersandapplicants,JournalofPoliceScience&Administration,Vol.16No.3,pp.268273.
Henson,B.,Reyns,B.,Klahm,C.andFrank,J.(2010),Dogoodrecruitsmakegoodcops?Problemspredicting
andmeasuringacademyandstreetlevelsuccess,PoliceQuarterly,Vol.13No.1,pp.526.
Hiatt,D.andHargrave,G.E.(1988a),MMPIprofilesofproblempeaceofficers,JournalofPersonality
Assessment,Vol.52No.4,pp.722731.
Hiatt,D.andHargrave,G.E.(1988b),Predictingjobperformanceproblemswithpsychologicalscreening,
JournalofPoliceScience&Administration,Vol.16No.2,pp.122125.
Ho,T.(2001),Theinterrelationshipsofpsychologicaltesting,psychologistsrecommendations,andpolice
departmentsrecruitmentdecisions,PoliceQuarterly,Vol.4No.3,pp.318342.
Hogan,R.(1971),Personalitycharacteristicsofhighlyratedpolicemen,PersonnelPsychology,Vol.24No.1,
pp.679686.
Hogg,A.andWilson,C.(1995),IsthePsychologicalScreeningofPoliceApplicantsaRealisticGoal?TheSuccess
andFailuresofPsychologicalScreening,NationalPoliceResearchUnit,Payneham.
Hooke,J.F.andKrauss,H.H.(1971),Personalitycharacteristicsofsuccessfulpolicesergeantcandidates,
JournalofCriminalLaw,CriminologyandPoliceScience,Vol.62No.1,pp.104106.
Inwald,R.E.(1988),Fiveyearfollowupstudyofdepartmentalterminationsaspredictedby16pre
employmentpsychologicalindicators,JournalofAppliedPsychology,Vol.73No.4,pp.703710.
Inwald,R.(2010),UseoftheInwaldPersonalityInventory,HilsonTests,andInwaldSurveysforselection,
fitnessfordutyassessment,andrelationshipcounselling,inWeiss,P.A.(Ed.),PersonalityAssessmentinPolice
Psychology:A21stCenturyPerspective,CharlesC.Thomas,Springfield,IL,pp.528,91131.
Inwald,R.E.andShusman,E.J.(1984),TheIPIandMMPIaspredictorsofacademyperformanceforpolice
recruits,JournalofPoliceScience&Administration,Vol.12No.1,pp.111.
Kleiman,L.S.andGordon,M.E.(1986),Anexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenpolicetrainingacademy
performanceandjobperformance,JournalofPoliceScience&Administration,Vol.14No.4,pp.293299.
Lough,J.andRyan,M.(2005),PsychologicalprofilingofAustralianpoliceofficers:anexaminationofpost
selectionperformance,InternationalJournalofPoliceScienceandManagement,Vol.7No.1,pp.1523.
Lough,J.andRyan,M.(2006),PsychologicalprofilingofAustralianpoliceofficers:alongitudinalexamination
ofpostselectionperformance,InternationalJournalofPoliceScienceandManagement,Vol.8No.2,pp.143
152.
Lough,J.andRyan,M.(2010),Researchnote:psychologicalprofilingofAustralianpoliceofficers:athreeyear
examinationofpostselectionperformance,InternationalJournalofPoliceScienceandManagement,Vol.12
No.3,pp.480486.
Lough,J.,Wald,E.,Byrne,K.andWalker,G.(2007),TheimpactofpsychologicalprofilingofAustralian
correctionalofficers,CorrectionsCompendium,Vol.32No.4,pp.16.

Macintyre,S.,Ronken,C.andPrenzler,T.(2001),TheMMPI2asatoolforpreventingpolicemisconduct:a
Victorian(Australian)policestudy,InternationalJournalofPoliceScience&Management,Vol.4No.3,pp.
213229.
Meier,R.D.,Farmer,R.E.andMaxwell,D.(1988),Psychologicalscreeningofpolicecandidates:current
perspectives,JournalofPoliceScienceandAdministration,Vol.15No.3,pp.210215.
Merian,E.M.,Stefan,D.,Schoenfeld,L.S.andKobos,J.(1980),Screeningofpoliceapplicants:a5itemMMPI
researchindex,PsychologicalReports,Vol.47No.1,pp.155158.
Metchik,E.(1999),Ananalysisofthescreeningoutmodelofpoliceofficerselection,PoliceQuarterly,Vol.
2No.1,pp.7995.
Mufson,D.W.andMufson,M.(1998),PredictingpoliceofficerperformanceusingtheIPI:anillustrationfrom
Appalachia,ProfessionalPsychologyResearchandPractice,Vol.29No.1,pp.5962.
Murphy,K.andDavidshofer,C.(1994),PsychologicalTesting:PrinciplesandApplications,PrenticeHall,
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.
Pugh,G.(1985),TheCaliforniapsychologicalinventoryandpoliceselection,JournalofPoliceScienceand
Administration,Vol.13No.2,pp.172177.
Sarchione,C.,Muchinsky,P.,Nelson,R.andCuttler,M.(1998),Predictionofdysfunctionaljobbehaviors
amonglawenforcementofficers,JournalofAppliedPsychology,Vol.83No.6,pp.904912.
Saxe,S.andReiser,M.(1976),AcomparisonofthreepoliceapplicantgroupsusingtheMMPI,Journalof
PoliceScience&Administration,Vol.4No.4,pp.419425.
Schoenfeld,L.S.,Kobos,J.andPhinney,I.R.(1980),Screeningpoliceapplicants:astudyofreliabilitywiththe
MMPI,PsychologicalReports,Vol.47No.1,pp.419425.
Sellbom,M.,Fischler,G.L.andBenPorath,Y.S.(2007),IdentifyingMMPI2predictorsofpoliceofficer
integrityandmisconduct,CriminalJusticeandBehavior,Vol.34No.8,pp.9851004.
Shusman,E.J.,Inwald,R.E.andLanda,B.(1984),CorrectionofficerjobperformanceaspredictedbytheIPI
andMMPI,CriminalJusticeandBehavior,Vol.11No.3,pp.309329.
Simmers,K.,Bowers,T.andRuiz,J.(2003),Preemploymentpsychologicaltestingofpoliceofficers:theMMPI
andtheIPIaspredictorsofperformance,InternationalJournalofPoliceScienceandManagement,Vol.5No.
4,pp.277294.
Smyth,B.andByrne,K.(1994),TheUseofSpecializedPsychologicalAssessmentMethodsintheSelectionof
ApplicantstotheVictoriaPolice,unpublishedmanuscript,AustralianInstituteofForensicPsychology,
Melbourne.
Super,J.T.(2006),Asurveyofpreemploymentpsychologicalevaluationtestsandprocedures,Journalof
PoliceandCriminalPsychology,Vol.21No.2,pp.8390.
Surrette,M.A.,Aamodt,M.G.andSerafino,G.(2004),UsingMMPIspecialscaleconfigurationstopredict
performanceratingsofpoliceofficersinNewMexico,AppliedHRMResearch,Vol.9No.2,pp.7172.
Weiss,P.A.andInwald,R.E.(2010),Abriefhistoryofpersonalityassessmentinpolicepsychology,inWeiss,
P.A.(Ed.),PersonalityAssessmentinPolicePsychology:A21stCenturyPerspective,pp.528,CharlesC.
Thomas,Springfield,IL.
Weiss,P.A.andWeiss,W.U.(2010a),UsingtheMMPI2inpolicepsychologicalassessment,inWeiss,P.A.
(Ed.),PersonalityAssessmentinPolicePsychology:A21stCentury
Perspective,CharlesC.Thomas,Springfield,IL,pp.528,5971.Weiss,W.U.andWeiss,P.A.(2010b),Useof
thepersonalityassessmentinventoryandpoliceandsecuritypersonnelselection,inWeiss,P.A.(Ed.),
PersonalityAssessmentinPolicePsychology:A21stCenturyPerspective,CharlesC.Thomas,Springfield,IL,pp.
528,7290.
White,M.(2008),Identifyinggoodcopsearly:predictingrecruitperformanceintheacademy,Police
Quarterly,Vol.11No.1,pp.2749.
Winters,C.A.(1990),ProblemsofvarianceintheutilityoftheMMPIintheselectionofmetropolitanpolice,
PoliceJournal,Vol.63No.2,pp.121128.
Wright,B.S.,Doerner,W.G.andSpeir,J.C.(1990),Preemploymentpsychologicaltestingasapredictorof
policeperformanceduringanFTOprogram,AmericanJournalofPolice,Vol.9No.4,pp.6584.
Abouttheauthors
JonathanLoughisaPhDCandidateattheDeakinUniversity,Melbourne,Australia.HeisalsothePrincipalof
theLoughResearchServices,andaPsychologistandanIndependentResearchConsultantinMelbourne,
Australia.Hespecializesinresearchdesign,analysisandstatistics,surveywriting,andpsychological
assessment.Overthelasttenyears,hehasworkedwitharangeofprivateandgovernmentclients,including
ANZBank,ClemengerBBDO,andtheAustralianInstituteofForensicPsychology.PriortoestablishingLough

ResearchServices,JonathanwasaResearchPsychologistattheMonashUniversity,workingintheareaof
publicsafetyandinjuryprevention.JonathanLoughisthecorrespondingauthorandcanbecontactedat:
jlough@optusnet.com.au
DrKathrynvonTreueristheAssociateHeadoftheSchool(PartnershipsandDevelopment)andtheCourse
ChairfortheOrganisationalPsychologyProgramattheDeakinUniversity.Sheutilizes20yearsofindustry
experienceinorganisationalpsychologyandseniormanagementtoinformherresearch,teachingandservice
rolesattheUniversity.Sheishighlyregardedandsoughtafterbyindustrygroups,andisanationalleaderin
areasoforganisationalpsychologypracticeandresearch.DrKathrynvonTreuercompletedpostgraduate
studiesinpsychology,businessandeducation.Herdoctoraldissertationwasawardedtheprestigious
ResearchExcellenceawardfromtheSwinburneUniversityin2006,forinvestigatingorganisationalfactors
thatfacilitateworkplaceinnovation.Shewasrecentlyinvitedtoprovideakeynoteaddressonorganisational
resilience,andistheManagingEditoroftheAustralianandNewZealandJournalofOrganisationalPsychology.