Week 5 – Discussion 1
Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.
|Controversies in Industrial and Organizational Assessment|
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 11 in the text, the articles by Baez (2013), Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007), Morgeson, Campion, and Dipboye (2007), Peterson, Griffith, Isaacson, O’Connell, and Mangos (2011), and the Maximizing Human Potential Within Organizations (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., Building Better Organizations (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and Top Minds and Bottom Lines (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. brochures on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website.
Evaluate the MMP1-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. C (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. and Ms. D. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. For this discussion, you will take on the role of an industrial-organizational psychologist recently awarded a contract to evaluate potential police candidates. The purpose of the evaluations is to determine the psychological capability of the applicants to be certified as police officers in your state. The applicants you are examining are applying for certification and will be vested with a position of public trust. If certified as police officers, the individuals will likely be required at some future time to exercise significant physical strength and undergo high emotional stress. As the examining psychologist, you are required to comment on the applicants’ social comprehension, judgment, impulse control, potential for violence, and/or any psychological traits that might render her or him psychologically at risk to be certified. The state requires that each applicant’s examination include the following elements:
Interview and History: The psychologist must personally interview the applicant and provide a summary of the applicant’s personal, educational, employment, and criminal history.
Required Personality Test: The applicant shall be administered any current standard form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) by the licensed psychologist who interviewed the individual, or by a paraprofessional employed by and under the direct control and supervision of that licensed psychologist.
Other Testing Methods: If (after conducting the required test) the licensed psychologist is unable to certify the applicant’s psychological capability or risk to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer, the psychologist is directed to personally employ whatever other psychological measuring instrument(s) and/or technique(s) deemed necessary to form her or his professional opinion. The use of any such instrument(s) and/or technique(s) requires a full and complete written explanation to the commission.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume the interview and history information reported to you by Mr. C. and Ms. D. is unremarkable and that neither candidate communicated anything to you during the interview that raised concerns about her or his capabilities to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Review the MMP1-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for Mr. C. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and Ms. D. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and evaluate the professional interpretation of this testing and assessment data from an ethical perspective.
In your initial post, communicate your conclusions about Mr. C. and Ms. D., either recommending certification or communicating reservations. After you have made your decision, begin the section on each candidate with one of the following statements, identifying each candidate by name.
To recommend certification: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer.
Follow the above statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the available test results.
Follow the rationale with a brief comparison of any additional assessment instruments you might consider administering beyond the MMPI-2-RF. Debate the pros and cons of the potential use of other assessments. Explain any ethical implications that may arise from the interpretation of this data.
To communicate reservations: I have examined [insert applicant’s name], and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically at risk for exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer.
Follow the statement with a one-paragraph rationale for your conclusion based on the available test results.
Follow the rationale with a brief comparison of any additional assessment instruments you recommend administering beyond the MMPI-2-RF. Debate the pros and cons of using other assessments.
Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion.
Critique your colleague’s conclusions and rationales. Assess any personality instruments recommended by your colleague. Suggest and explain other measure(s) your colleague might use in this situation. If you concur with your colleague’s recommended assessments, provide a rationale explaining why. Use the assigned readings, and additional research as necessary, to support your assertions.
Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post.