American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 233–248 | Cite as

The neo pi-r, inwald personality inventory, and mmpi-2 in the prediction of police academy performance: A case for incremental validity

Article

Abstract

The utility of personality inventories for predicting successful police officer performance is an important issue in the law enforcement employment selection process. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the incremental validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI), and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) for predicting police academy performance of 79 recruits. Results indicate that each inventory contributes significantly to prediction of academic performance in the academy, while only the NEO PI-R predicts physical performance. The addition of the NEO PI-R to selection processes that already incorporate the MMPI-2 and IPI may be useful for enhancing prediction of police officer performance.

Keywords

Police Officer Personality Inventory Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Incremental Validity Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartol, C. R. (1991). Predictive validation of the MMPI for small-town police officers who fail.Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 22, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2003).Nongendered norms for the MMPI-2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, G. D., Tong, E. M. W., Diong, W. M., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Khader, M., & Ang, J. C. H. (2001). The relationship between coping and personality among police officers in Singapore.Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, J. (2000). Personality testing and police selection: Utility of the “big five.”New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29, 2–9.Google Scholar
  5. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).The MMPI-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cortina, J. M., Doherty, M. L., Schmitt, N., Kaufman, G., & Smith, R. G. (1992). The “big five” personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: Predictors of police performance.Personnel Psychology, 45, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McRae, R. R. (1992).NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  8. Costello, R. M., Schneider, S. L., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (1996). Validation of a preemployment MMPI index correlated with disciplinary suspension days of police officers.Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2002). Prediction of police officer performance with the Inwald Personality Inventory.Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 17(2), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Luebbert, M. C. (in press). The NEO-PI-R as predictor of police academy performance.Criminal Justice & Behavior.Google Scholar
  11. Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Rosso, M. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 in police officer selection: Normative data and relation to the Inwald Personality Inventory.Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 32, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1992).Technical assistance manual on the employment provisions (Titlel) of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Hargrave, G. E. (1985). Using the MMPI and CPI to screen law enforcement applicants: A study of reliability and validity of clinicians’ decisions.Journal of Police Science & Administration, 13, 221–224.Google Scholar
  14. Hargrave, G. E., Hiatt, D., & Gaffney, T. W. (1988). F + 4 + 9 + Cn: An MMPI measure of aggression in law enforcement officers and applicants.Journal of Police Science & Administration, 16, 268–273.Google Scholar
  15. Hargrave, G. E., Hiatt, D., Ogard, E. M., & Karr, C. (1994). Comparison of the MMPI and the MMPI-2 for a sample of peace officers.Psychological Assessment, 6, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiatt, D., & Hargrave, G. E. (1988). Predicting job performance problems with psychological screening.Journal of Police Science & Administration, 16, 122–135.Google Scholar
  17. Hiatt, D., & Hargrave, G. E. (1994). Psychological assessment of gay and lesbian law enforcement applicants.Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance. The big five revisited.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inwald, R. (1987). Use of psychologists for selecting and training police. In H. W. Moore & P. C. Unsinger (Eds.),Police managerial use of psychology and psychologists (pp. 107–139). Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  20. Inwald, R. (1992). Inwald Personality Inventory technical manual (revised). New York: Hilson Research.Google Scholar
  21. Inwald, R. E., & Shusman, E. J. (1984). The IPI and MMPI as predictors of academy performance for police recruits.Journal of Police Science & Administration, 12(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Knatz, H. F., Inwald, R. E., Brockwell, A. L., & Tran, L. N. (1992). IPI and MMPI predictions of counterproductive job behaviors by racial group.Journal of Business & Psychology, 7, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornfeld, A. D. (1995). Police officer candidate MMPI-2 performance: Gender, ethnic, and normative factors.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kornfeld, A. D. (2000). Harris-Lingoes MMPI-2 Pd subscales and the assessment of law enforcement candidates.Psychological Reports, 86, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Metchik, E. (1999). An analysis of the “screening out” model of police officer selection.Police Quarterly, 2(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mufson, D. W., & Mufson, M. (1998). Predicting police officer performance using the IPI: An illustration from Appalachia.Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 29, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pallone, N. J. (1992). The MMPI in police officer selection: Legal constraints, case law, empirical data.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1998). Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO Personality Inventory.Journal of Psychology, 128, 255–265.Google Scholar
  29. Reid-Seiser, H. L., & Fritzsche, B. A. (2001). The usefulness of the NEO PI-R Positive Presentation Management Scale for detecting response distortion in employment contexts.Personality & Individual Differences, 31, 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosse, J. G., Miller, H. E., & Barnes, I. K. (1991). Combining personality and cognitive ability predictors for hiring service-oriented employees.Journal of Business & Psychology, 5(4), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection. Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmit, M. J., & Stanard, S. J. (1996). The utility of personality inventories in the employee assistance process: A study of EAP referred police officers.Employee Assistance Quarterly, 11, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scogin, F., Schumacher, J., Gardner, J., & Chaplin, W. (1995). Predictive validity of psychological testing in law enforcement settings.Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 26, 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Workowski, E. J., & Pallone, N. J. (1999). Previously unscored pre-service MMPI data in relation to police performance over a decade: A multivariate inquiry.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatrySaint Louis UniversitySt. Louis
  2. 2.Florissant Psychological ServicesUSA

Personalised recommendations