Abstract
Fitness-for-duty (FFD) examinations are requested of psychologists when an employer has concerns about an employee’s psychological or neuropsychological functioning. In a psychological FFD examination, the employer wants to understand the impact and risks of the psychological or emotional instability and whether this instability poses any risk of harm in the workplace. In a neuropsychological FFD examination, the questions focus on the impact of the employee’s neuropathology (e.g., seizure disorder, stroke) in the workplace. Boundaries, rules, ethics, and informed consent for FFD examinations are discussed. The validity of the examination must be addressed, but in FFD testing, validity is more about a lack of findings being the product of underreporting of emotional or psychological distress. Case examples are provided to show different types of FFD and related examinations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Schappel, C. (2014). When do fitness-for-duty inquiries go too far? EEOC weighs in. (September 19, 2014). Downloaded from HRMorning.com (http://bit.ly/2mWmdzW).
Anfang SA, Wall BW. Psychiatric fitness-for-duty evaluations. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2006;29:675–93.
Morel KR. Test security in medicolegal cases: proposed guidelines for attorneys utilizing neuropsychology practice. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;24:635–46.
Axelrod B, Barth J, Faust D, Fisher J, Heilbronner R, Larrabee G, Pliskin N, Silver C. Presence of third-party observers during neuropsychological testing: official statement of the National Academy of neuropsychology. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2000;15:379–80.
Otto RK, Douglas KS. Handbook of violence risk assessment. New York: Routledge; 2010.
Heilbrun K, Yashuhara K, Shah S. Violence risk assessment tools. In: Otto RK, Douglas KS, editors. Handbook of violence risk assessment. New York: Routledge; 2010.p. 1–17.
Chafetz MD, Prentkowski E, Rao A. To work or not to work: motivation (not low IQ) determines symptom validity test findings. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2011;26(4):306–13.
Morey LC. Personality assessment inventory. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1991.
Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2-restructured form (MMPI-2-RF): manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2008.
Rosen GM, Baldwin SA, Smith RE. Reassessing the “traditional background hypothesis” for elevated MMPI and MMPI-2 lie-scale scores. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(10):1336–43.
Paulhus DL. Paulhus deception scales. North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems; 1998.
Kay, G. & Atkins, K. (2016). Which norms should I be using? Presentation at the 4th annual aerospace psychology seminar, Denver, CO, September 18, 2016.
Kennedy CH, Kay GG. Aeromedical psychology. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press; 2013.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Dr. David Fisher, who provided helpful comments and suggestions, and Paige Haley, for her work on the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chafetz, M. (2019). Fitness for Duty Examinations. In: Ravdin, L.D., Katzen, H.L. (eds) Handbook on the Neuropsychology of Aging and Dementia. Clinical Handbooks in Neuropsychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93496-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93497-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)