An examination of the “job suitability snapshot” on the Personality Assessment Inventory and the California Psychological Inventory Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Report, and its usefulness in predicting “fitness for duty”
The use of personality tests as screening or fitness devices, especially in high-risk or sensitive jobs such as police officer has been increasing in importance during the past several years. The psychological Fitness For Duty (FFD) exam can be a very useful tool for public safety administrators who must deal with problematic personnel. This study investigated the correlation between subject variables and PAI and CPI “job suitability” scores on the Law Enforcement, Corrections and Public Safety Report that might assist in defining subject variables and PAI and CPI scores for incumbent officers referred for fitness for duty testing. The results will provide a better understanding of the ability of the PAI and CPI “job suitability” scores in the Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Report to correlate with subject variables of referred incumbent police officers and will help psychologists, assessors, and counselors to better understand the relation between those variables. This study was carried out to assess the validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and California Personality Inventory (CPI) Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Reports as predictors of police officer fitness for duty. In general, the results of this study indicate that the PAI Law Enforcement, Corrections and Public Safety report and the CPI Law Enforcement, Corrections and Public Safety Report do an equal job of determining an officer's fitness for duty. Because the PAI and CPI Law Enforcement, Corrections and Public Safety Report do an equal job of predicting fitness for duty it is suggested to alternate the administration of the PAI and CPI so that test-retest reliability is not in question. The results from this study also suggest that it is difficult to separate alcohol use concerns, illegal drug use concerns and substance use proclivity. The importance of being able to differentiate between alcohol use and drug use lies in treatment planning for incumbents presenting with these issues. Therefore, given the results reported in this study, recommendations are offered to address this issue. Suggestions for future research are also addressed.
0632: Psychological tests