PSYCHOLOGICAL Pre-employment Assessments of Law Enforcement Candidates Stephen F. Curran, Ph.D., ABPP Board Certified, Police & Public Safety Psychology 29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 704 Towson, MD 21204 (800)962-5763 / (410)823-0555 www.AtlanticOccupsych.com Presentation to Medical Staff – Concentra Medical Centers on December 4, 2013
The presenter has no financial interest in any psychological tests mentioned in the presentation. Disclosure
Overview of Psychological Assessment Standards Case Studies to demonstrate the integration of psychological testing data and history of candidate. Assessment Issues of Combat Veterans: Current Police Officer/Citizen Soldiers and Applicants with no prior public safety employment. Objectives
◦ Assessment ◦ Intervention ◦ Operational ◦ Consultation Domains of Police Psychology
Doctoral level education and licensed to practice Psychology. Training in psychometrics and continuing education through professional police psychology organizations. Professional membership and regular attendance at one or more of the following organizations: Police Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Police and Public Safety Psychology (Division 18) of the American Psychological Association (APA), Council of Police Psychological Services, and/or Society for Police and Criminal Psychology. Standards for Evaluator Qualification
1967 Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Bonsignore v. City of New York (1982). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1995). ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations. EEOC NOTICE Number 915.002 Date 10/10/95. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2009). Pre- employment Psychological Evaluations. Arlington, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 Background to Current Practice Standards
Problem-Analysis/Problem Solving Judgment and Reasoning Decision-Making Ability Planning and Organization Interpersonal Skill Oral Communication Teamwork Orientation Self-Motivation Composure Conflict Resolution Honesty and Integrity Written Communication Reading Comprehension Basic Arithmetic Public Relations Skill Essential Job Functions
Dimension/ Attributes Meaning… Social Competence Happy with progress in life, does well in social settings, others describe applicant favorably. Teamwork Success in team settings of work and school. Dependability Unlikely to have job attendance problems, will complete tasks as assigned. Adaptability Adjusts to different work assignments, schedules and supervision Impulse Control Complies to rules, not reckless, thinks before acting, DV Screening Integrity Truthful statements, honest in interactions Essential Job Functions Behavorial Descriptors
Stress Coping Healthy lifestyle behaviors, does not over-react, resilient Judgment Good decision making skills. Assertiveness Appropriate responses to citizens and personal relationships. Risk Taking – Substance Use Low addictions potential, will use verbal skills before physical intervention as appropriate. Global Psychopathology No signs of psychological impairments. Work Behaviors Consistent, high achiever. Training Success Prior academic achievement, consistent and successful prior work patterns. Essential Job Functions (continued) Behavioral Descriptors
3.5 – PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE 3.5.1 – Pursue, apprehend, and restrain individuals. 3.5.2 – Rescue an individual and/or remove them from a hazardous environment. 3.5.3 – Identify hazards, persons, and evidence. 3.5.3.1 – Vision (e.g., house numbers, license plates, vehicle descriptions, suspect/victim descriptions, body language, potential weapons, weapon use). 3.5.3.2 – Hearing (e.g., conversation, radio communications, alarms, requests for assistance). 3.5.3.3 – Smell (e.g., hazardous materials, contraband, alcohol on the breath). 3.5.3.4 – Touch (e.g., concealed weapons, heat, moisture). 3.5.3.5 – Read, write, and speak clearly. ACOEM Guidance for the Medical Evaluation of Law Enforcement Officers
To provide guidance concerning the effect of medications (at recommended therapeutic dosages), the following medication categories are offered based on the potential effects on the LEO’s ability to safely perform job functions or the risk of sudden incapacitation: A (Acceptable) — These medications are unlikely to adversely impact performance of job functions. Therefore, they are generally acceptable for use while on duty. T (Temporary) — These medications may have an effect at the beginning of treatment. Medical evaluation should consider provision of appropriate restrictions on a temporary basis at the beginning of treatment until it can be ascertained that the effects of the medication are unlikely to cause sudden incapacitation S (Shift) — These medications are known to have effects of short duration that may adversely impact performance of job functions. These medications may be taken while the LEO is off duty with adequate time before returning to duty for the resolution of any effects that would adversely affect performance. R (Restricted) — These medications are known to have an effect that will very likely adversely impact safety or performance of job functions. Medical evaluation should consider provision of appropriate restrictions for LEOs taking or affected by these medications. D (Diagnosis) — The diagnosis for which the medication is prescribed, rather than the medication itself, may require evaluation for medical restriction. Medication Standards – Incumbent Officers
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2- RF) Inwald Personality Inventory California Psychological Inventory Personality Assessment Inventory Psychological Semi-structured interview Psychological Measures
The candidate can either MEET or NOT MEET the requirements of safely and effectively perform essential job functions. The final ratings of psychological stability and suitability may be augmented by the psychologist- evaluator’s rating within the category of “recommended”. An agency may have a reasonable business necessity to identify those candidates exceeding standards. Ratings of EXCEEDS and MEETS may be identified by the psychologist. Alternative ratings include “recommended,” “marginally recommended,” and “not recommended.” Ratings of Stability and Suitability
Not Recommended - Behavioral
Not Recommended - Behavioral
Not Recommended - Behavioral
Not Recommended - Emotional
Recommended
Recommended
Correctional Officer Not Recommended
Combat Veterans/Citizen Soldiers
Over 487,000 soldier deployments of members of the National Guard have been deployed in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 4,599 Law Enforcement* > 80% of ARNG joined after 9/11 11% of casualties have been National Guard National Guard Data
2.5 million Troops have served since 9/11 1.6 million new veterans since 9/11 286,000 Treated for PTSD at VA since 9/11 440,000 high-end estimate of how many veterans exhibit signs of PTS. Department of Veterans Affairs 04Nov2013
13 to 22 percent of all casualties between 2002 and 2010 have suffered eye injuries or trauma Of 32,233 wounded in Iraq, 20% serious brain or spinal injuries CY 2012 through July 30 – 200+ suicides of active duty personnel (38 during July, 2012) 17%-19% of OIF soldiers met screening criteria for depression, anxiety, or PTSD Physical and Psychological Impact
Armed Forces Health Surveillance Data (through April 2012)
Between May 2011 and April 2012 on post- deployment assessments (N=greater than 50,000) about 90 days after deployment 1. 42.9% were referred for medical follow-up 2. 21.6% referred for mental health follow-up 3. 31.4% reported health worse than before deployed 4. Alcohol misuse: combat exposure related to abuse PDHRA
Negative emotionality and combat exposure were predictive of both chronic and vulnerable-risk trajectories. Chronic trajectory associated with high level of depression at pre-deployment and higher pre-deployment levels of concerns about life/family disruptions. Vulnerable-risk trajectory associated with low levels of preparedness, high levels of perceived threat, post-deployment stressors and lower levels of post-deployment support. Longitudinal RINGS study
Current police officers for LE Agency N = 0 Police officers with prior deployment applying to Agency Applicants with no prior LE but with prior deployment Current Retrospective Study
Demographics
None Light (Examples: under enemy fire less than once monthly, fewer than 25% of unit killed or wounded) Moderate to Heavy (Examples: 3 to 50+ times firing at enemy, 3 to 50+ times in danger of injury or killed, 26% to more than 76% of unit killed or wounded) Combat Exposure Rating
MMPI-2 (A) MMPI-2-RF (B) IPI (C) 16PF (D) Psychological Tests
Recommend
More recommend
