Police Officer Evaluations

Suitability for hire and fitness for duty evaluations (FFDEs) for police officers are complex evaluations that attempt to predict one’s suitability for being hired as a police officer or to determine fitness to continue to serve as an officer. There are multiple issues with regard to conducting these assessments; some of the issues addressed in this article are (a) predictive validity; (b) normative samples, defensiveness, and response styles; (c) the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) dimensions; (d) typical problems with police officers; and (e) typical types of psychological measures that are used in conjunction with police evaluations.

Predictive Validity

Predictive validity refers to how accurate psychologists are in predicting what they are trying to predict. It asks the question, “What percentage of the time is a psychologist correct in his or her opinion about what they are trying to predict?” To improve this validity, it is important to use measures that have been shown in research to be linked to the outcome variable, in these cases, suitability or fitness. Many measures have been used in evaluations, but not all have been found in research studies to be accurate in predicting suitability or fitness. Just because a measure is useful in a clinical population, it should not be assumed that it is relevant to the issues involved in police screening. But, there is limited research on the predictive validity of common clinical tools used by psychologists for police evaluations. As a result, measures not shown in research to be predictive of suitability or fitness are often used because they are predictive of clinical syndromes and addictions.

Two ways to improve predictive validity are to use measures shown in research to be predictive of suitability or fitness and to conduct future research on the predictive validity of common clinical tools for these evaluations.

Normative Samples, Defensiveness, and Response Styles

A normative sample is a sample of individuals who have previously taken a given test. Typical sample numbers are in the thousands. An examinee’s score during a suitability evaluation or FFDE is compared to the normative sample. Scores too high or too low are considered not normative or outliers because they lie outside of the typical responses in that group and are rarer for that sample. The type of normative samples used in evaluations is important because it has an effect on whether or not the individual is being compared to individuals similar to himself or herself.

A sample of applicants who were subsequently hired, or a sample of incumbent police officers, is called a public safety sample and is preferable in suitability evaluations to a clinical or community sample for multiple reasons. One reason is that the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines state that appropriate normative samples be used when conducting psychological assessments. Another reason is response styles, or an individual’s tendency to deliberately try to fake good, fake bad, or respond randomly or inconsistently to items. In police evaluations, individuals are being assessed with regard to employment and not as individuals in the community seeking psychological assessment or treatment. So, when they take the tests, there may be an increased level of defensiveness, a tendency to portray oneself in a favorable light, an unwillingness to admit to minor shortcomings, or an attempt to get out of work.

Most individuals assessed for preemployment are hoping to be found suitable for the job and free from mental illness. A desire to be hired can increase the results of the validity scales. As such, a faking good response style can render the results invalid. For example, in a FFDE, an individual could fake bad or fake good, depending on their motivation (i.e., wants to get out of work or wants to go back to work, respectively).

Using public safety samples in suitability evaluations can minimize the likelihood that measures will be invalidated because of defensiveness or a tendency to fake good in suitability evaluations. This is because the entire normative sample was assessed for preemployment reasons rather than for a clinical reason or for participation in a study. Therefore, in suitability evaluations, the tendency to fake good would likely be the norm because candidates will want to be seen as suitable. The use of a public safety sample serves to normalize a tendency to portray oneself in a positive light. Thus, because most candidates in suitability evaluations want to be hired, the use of public safety norms helps to level the playing field. As a result, a candidate would have to be extreme in his or her attempt to fake good in order for the validity scale to be considered significant.

Using a public safety sample also helps to detect pathology that may have been missed if an individual was portraying himself or herself in a positive light, but not to the extent that the measure would be invalidated. In those cases, the scales assessing for pathology would be reduced, and there would be a greater likelihood the psychologist would not see problems when looking at the data. This is because the scale that assesses for various dimensions would be depressed or subthreshold and not flagged as a problem. Thus, when possible, it is preferable to use measures that offer a public safety normative sample when conducting suitability evaluations. To date, no FFDE normative samples have been developed.

California POST Dimensions

The California POST dimensions provide a well-researched and defined taxonomy for defining suitability. The California POST Commission conducted a statewide analysis of the demands and requirements of the job through subject matter experts (patrol supervisors and field training officers) from the entire state of California, rating the importance of various competencies to successful officer performance. After three empirical studies, the following 10 dimensions were found consistently to be linked to successful performance:

1. Social competence involves social awareness, empathy, respectful communication, and concern in one’s daily interactions.
2. Adaptability–flexibility involves the ability to adjust to unexpected or sudden tasks and the continuation of duties without supervision.
3. Impulse control–attention to safety involves the avoidance of unnecessarily risky and/or impulsive behavior, attention and awareness of hazards, and ability to suppress impetuosity.
4. Teamwork includes effectiveness in working with others, providing assistance, and maintaining cooperative working relationships.
5. Conscientiousness–dependability involves reliable and diligent work patterns, carrying out assigned tasks, good organizational skills, and perseverance.
6. Integrity–ethics involves maintaining high standards of personal conduct, abiding by laws and procedures, and not bending rules or abusing the system for a personal gain.
7. Avoiding substance abuse and other risk-taking behavior involves avoiding participation in risky behavior that can be self-damaging or inappropriate (e.g., sale of drugs, domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse).
8. Emotional regulation and stress tolerance involves the ability to stay in control and maintain composure in stressful situations, acceptance of mistakes, and maintaining an even temperament on and off duty.
9. Assertiveness–persuasiveness involves taking control appropriately in all situations, the ability to confront suspects, and persuading others to adopt a desired course of action.
10. Decision-making and judgment involves the ability to use practical judgment and efficient problem-solving skills, and the application of deductive and inductive reasoning when necessary.

Typical Problems With Police Officers

While the POST dimensions are used to define the ideal cop, they are dynamic rather than static variables, meaning that they do not remain fixed but instead can change over the course of a career as critical incidents or other events occur. Once an officer is found suitable for hire, he or she may encounter problems, experience trauma, or other circumstances may arise that may render that officer unfit. Typically, police departments will identify a problem and refer the officer for an FFDE. Reasons for referral of an officer for examination typically fall into four main categories: (1) trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder, (2) substance abuse problems, (3) domestic violence or anger management problems, and (4) other.

Due to the circumstances of the job and the role of being a first responder, police officers often experience work-related trauma. Some officers also have substance use disorders, either as a coping mechanism for post-traumatic stress disorder or for other reasons. It is more common for alcohol use to be problematic than street drugs, as officers are randomly drug tested. However, officers who have had work-related injuries may become addicted to prescribed medications.

Difficulties in managing anger and relationships can also arise for police officers. Long hours, night shifts, a need to maintain control and order at work, and pent-up anger can result in domestic violence and anger management issues. Finally, there are a number of other situations, such as those related to off- or on-duty misconduct, head traumas, dementias, concussions, brain diseases, grief, stress, or other medical illnesses that can affect one’s mental state.

Typical Assessments and Measures

Psychological testing for preemployment screening typically involves a measure of normal personality traits such as the Big Five: conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness. The California Personality Inventory looks at the Big Five traits as well as others. The factor scales of the California Personality Inventory have been researched and shown to be valid predictors of the California POST dimensions. Public safety norms are also available for the test. The Public Safety Report offers favorable and unfavorable job indicators related to fitness as well as information about job suitability.

Also, typically administered in suitability evaluations is a screen for psychopathology and substance abuse. The Personality Assessment Inventory–Public Safety Selection Report and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Restructured Form– Police Candidate Interpretive Report are designed to detect pathology and substance use disorders. Both measures provide public safety norms and information regarding job suitability.

In suitability evaluations, a measure of cognitive functioning is also typically given to ensure adequate cognitive functioning. The choice of cognitive measures depends on the purpose of the testing. For instance, in a preemployment examination, in which multiple applicants might need to be assessed cognitively, a group-administered measure that provides a quick cognitive screening can be administered. However, if the individual is already a police officer and has a head trauma or possible dementia, full testing with a comprehensive IQ test or the use of neuropsychological measures might be indicated in order to answer the question of fitness.

Various other measures are often used to assess background history, substance abuse, violence risk, suicide risk, current stressors, coping abilities, and state or trait anger. Most of the measures that are used in FFDEs have no public safety norms and have not been shown to have predictive validity. Many of the clinical measures, however, do have predictive validity with regard to the individual problems or mental health disorders assessed.

References:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/ ethics/code/
2. California Post Dimensions Handbook. (2016). Retrieved May 2016 from https://www.post.ca.gov/backgroundinvestigation-manual-guidelines-for-the-investigator .aspx
3. Donner, C. M., Fridell, L. A., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). The relationship between self-control and police misconduct: A multi-agency study of first-line police supervisors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(7), 841–860.
4. Kitaeff, J. (2011). Handbook of police psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Marchand, A., Nadeau, C., Beaulieu-Prévost, D., Boyer, R., & Martin, M. (2015). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder among police officers: A prospective study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(3), 212–221. doi:10.1037/ a0038780