![mmpi-2-rf scoring mmpi-2-rf scoring](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R-Bagby/publication/249961040/figure/tbl1/AS:614139147866149@1523433591636/Correlations-Between-MMPI-2-RF-Higher-Order-and-Restructured-Clinical-Scales-and-PID-5.png)
This finding aligns with descriptions of individuals with very high Do scores (> 70T) as controlling, domineering, and aggressive in the literature. For example … candidates with higher scores on Dominance (Do) were at greater risk for subsequently being rated by supervisors as having control of conflict problems. “As with the MMPI–2–RF findings, the CPI–PPSR correlational and RRR analyses indicate that CPI–PPSR scale and prediction equation scores are substantially associated with negative outcomes. Of note, the associations between MMPI–2–RF measures of thought dysfunction and problem behaviors converge with past research in this area” (p.553) For example, focusing on the RRR analyses…, candidates with higher THD, Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Self-Doubt (SFD), and Psychoticism-Revised (PSYC-r) T scores at the preemployment assessment were at greater risk for subsequently being rated by supervisors as abusing sick leave. “MMPI–2–RF scores were substantially associated with a number of negative outcomes. The most frequently administered test of normal psychological functioning was the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), which was used in over 42% of evaluations.” (p.544) “Corey (2016) surveyed police psychologists nationwide and found that the most frequently administered test of abnormal psychological functioning was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI–2–RF), which was used in over 44% of police candidate evaluations, followed closely by the MMPI–2 at 37%. “A recent national survey of law enforcement agencies indicates that a psychological evaluation is required by 72% of departments overall and 98% of departments serving at least 25,000 residents.” (p.544) When this authority is misused, public safety is compromised and public trust in law enforcement is damaged.” (p.544) As a means of enforcing the law and protecting citizens, law enforcement officers are bestowed police powers that give them broad authority to use force and to conduct invasive searches and seizures under certain conditions. “In the United States, law enforcement officers are charged with the important task of upholding the laws of federal and local governments and of ensuring the safety of civilians within their jurisdictions. Implications of these findings for assessment science and practice are discussed. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that MMPI–2–RF and CPI scores complement each other, accounting for incremental variance in the prediction of job-related variables over and above each other. For the CPI, findings for scales indicating conformity with social norms, integrity, and tolerance were strong, as were the findings for an index indicating risk of termination.
![mmpi-2-rf scoring mmpi-2-rf scoring](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tayla-Lee/publication/315827768/figure/tbl1/AS:845469953576963@1578587153952/Included-MMPI-2-RF-Scales-Abbreviations-Names-Descriptions-and-Cronbachs-a.png)
![mmpi-2-rf scoring mmpi-2-rf scoring](https://post.psychcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/mmpi-2.jpg)
For the MMPI–2–RF, findings for scales from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains of the test were particularly strong. After applying a statistical correction for range restriction, we found a number of meaningful associations between both CPI and MMPI–2–RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings. Test scores from both instruments showed substantial range restriction, consistent with those produced by members of the police candidate comparison groups (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014 Roberts & Johnson, 2001). Substantive scale scores in this sample were meaningfully lower than those obtained by the tests’ normative samples in the case of the MMPI–2–RF and meaningfully higher in the case of the CPI (indicating less psychological dysfunction). We examined associations between prehire California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and prorated Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI–2–RF) scores (calculated from MMPI profiles) and supervisor ratings for a sample of 143 male police officers. Roberts, Law Enforcement Psychological Services Inc.
#Mmpi 2 rf scoring professional#
California School of Professional PsychologyĪnthony M. 5, 544-555 Predicting Postprobationary Job Performance of Police Officers Using CPI and MMPI-2-RF Test Data Obtained During Preemployment Psychological Screening Authors Below is a summary of the research and findings as well as a translation of this research into practice.įeatured Article | Journal of Personality Assessment | 2019, Vol. This is the bottom line of a recently published article in the Journal of Personality Assessment. The combined use the MMPI-2-RF and the CPI are effective tools for preemployment screening of police and public safety personnel.