See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376996624

Incremental Validity of MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 Scores in Public

Safety Candidate Pre-employment Psychological Evaluations

Article in Criminal Justice and Behavior · December 2023

DOI: 10.1177/00938548231219809

CITATION READS

1 43

5 authors, including:

Megan Whitman Bruce Cappo

Kent State University Clinical Associates, P.A.
21 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 218 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yossef Ben-Porath
Kent State University
314 PUBLICATIONS 9,578 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Megan Whitman on 20 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1219809
research-article2023
CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231219809Criminal Justice and BehaviorWhitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE

Incremental Validity of MMPI-3 and NEO

PI-3 Scores in Public Safety Candidate
Pre-employment Psychological
Evaluations

Megan R. Whitman
Kaci Holmes
Kent State University
Laura SUE ELIAS
Bruce M. Cappo
Clinical Associates, P.A.
Yossef S. Ben-porath
Kent State University

This study evaluated the incremental validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) and the NEO
Personality Inventory-3 (NEO PI-3) scores in predicting California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
dimension (i.e., the POST-10) ratings in public safety (n = 754) pre-employment psychological evaluations (PPEs). Although
research has supported the use of the MMPI and NEO PI instruments separately, no study has evaluated the use of these
abnormal- and normal-range tests in conjunction, consistent with the POST Manual requirement of use of clinical and nor-
mal-range personality measures. The MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 were completed during PPE. Problem ratings in the POST-10
dimensions were rated using information from the assessing psychologist’s report. MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores incre-
mented one another in nearly every hierarchical ordinal logit regression model conducted to predict the ratings for five
dimensions. Clinical implications and limitations, including potential criterion contamination especially for NEO PI-3 scores,
are discussed.

Keywords: MMPI-3; NEO PI-3; public safety; pre-employment evaluation; incremental validity; risk assessment

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The statements and opinions in this article are those of the authors. This research is
grant-funded by the University of Minnesota Press. Regarding conflicts of interest, Bruce M. Cappo has
received research support in the form of complimentary MMPI scoring reports from the MMPI Publisher, the
University of Minnesota Press. Yossef S. Ben-Porath receives research funding from the MMPI-3 test pub-
lisher, the University of Minnesota Press. As co-author of the MMPI-3, he receives royalties on sales of the test
and the MMPI-3 Public Safety Candidate Interpretive Reports. The data that support the findings of this study
are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Megan R. Whitman, Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, 144
Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242; e-mail: mwhitma5@kent.edu.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 202X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2023, 1­–22.
DOI: 10.1177/00938548231219809 ogdr/.oi/p:stht

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1
2 Criminal Justice and Behavior

P re-employment psychological evaluations (PPEs) are required for police candidates in

most states and major governmental agencies in the United States (Corey et al., 2022).
The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Psychological
Screening Manual (Spilberg & Corey, 2014/2022) describes 10 dimensions on which police
candidates should be evaluated (i.e., the POST-10): Social Competence, Teamwork,
Adaptability/Flexibility, Conscientiousness/Dependability, Impulse Control/Attention to
Safety, Integrity/Ethics, Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance, Decision-Making/
Judgment, Assertiveness/Persuasiveness, and Avoiding Substance Abuse and Other Risk-
Taking Behavior. The widely influential POST Manual also requires psychologists to
administer at least two broadband psychological tests: one that measures abnormal-range
personality characteristics and one that measures normal-range personality characteristics.
The Manual states that these tests should have evidence supporting their scores’ reliability
and validity, at least within the general population, but preferably in the relevant public
safety candidate populations.
Research on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-
2-RF; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011) scores of police candidates has demonstrated
good construct validity using other self-report criteria (Detrick et al., 2016; R. M. Roberts
et al., 2019; Sellbom et al., 2022), personal history data (Corey et al., 2018; Menton et al.,
2022), psychologist suitability recommendations (Tarescavage, Fischler, et al., 2015), psy-
chologist ratings of the POST-10 dimensions (Sellbom et al., 2022), internal affairs and
civilian review authority complaints (Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al.,
2015), involuntary or adverse departure data (Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage, Brewster,
et al., 2015; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al., 2015), and supervisor ratings of field performance
(Corey et al., 2018; R. M. Roberts et al., 2019; Sellbom et al., 2007, 2022; Tarescavage,
Brewster, et al., 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey,
Gupton, & Ben-Porath, 2015).
Building on this literature, research on the MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a,
2020b) has supported its utility in PPE. Correlations reported for public safety candidates in
the test manual supported both the validity of MMPI-3 scores and the comparability of
validity coefficients across MMPI-3 and MMPI-2-RF versions of scales (Ben-Porath &
Tellegen, 2020b). Using a subset of the sample used in this study, Whitman et al. (2021)
evaluated the criterion validity of MMPI-3 scores using ratings of the POST-10 dimensions
based on information in the psychological report. Correlations between MMPI-3 scores and
ratings of the POST-10 dimensions yielded a pattern of associations similar to previous
research using the MMPI-2-RF. Whitman et al. (2021) also found minimal differences in
validity coefficients across male and female police candidates and across police and other
public safety candidates. In another validation study, Whitman et al. (2023b) demonstrated
that police candidates produced similar MMPI-3 scores regardless of level of prior police
officer experience. In a third study, Whitman et al. (2023a) provided empirical support for
the validity of MMPI-3 scores by reporting correlations with psychosocial history findings
collected from police officer, correctional officer, dispatcher, and firefighter candidates.
Like Whitman et al. (2021), these authors found evidence of minimal differences in the
validity of scores across male and female police candidates and across police candidates
and candidates for other public safety positions. Talerico et al. (2023) reported evidence of
negligible slope and intercept bias (i.e., negligible differential validity) in MMPI-3 scores
across male and female police candidates.
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 3

Regarding normal-range tests of personality, the NEO Personality Inventory (PI) instru-
ments, including the NEO PI-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and NEO PI-3
(McCrae et al., 2005), have garnered research support in PPE contexts. Detrick et al. (2004)
found that some NEO PI-R scale scores significantly predicted police academy perfor-
mance after controlling for sex (male or female), race (Caucasian or not), marital status
(married or not), and academy class. Detrick and Chibnall (2006) compared PPE NEO PI-R
scores across the top and bottom 10% of a sample of academy completers (n = 14 each
group) and found those at the top of the class were higher in Conscientiousness and lower
in Neuroticism domains and facets. In each of two studies, 27 of 35 NEO PI-R mean score
comparisons across PPE and research-only contexts were statistically significant with
mostly large effect sizes (Detrick & Chibnall, 2020; Detrick et al., 2010). Detrick and
Chibnall (2020) investigated effects of frame of reference (i.e., using one’s typical self or
one’s typical self at work) and observed no significant differences.
Although substantial research has supported the use of the MMPI and NEO PI instru-
ments separately, no study has evaluated the utility of these tests when used in conjunction.
Such research is needed in light of the POST Manual requirement that both abnormal and
normal personality tests be used in PPEs. Limited research has evaluated the incremental
validity of NEO PI-R and MMPI-2-RF scores with other data sources in PPE. Chibnall and
Detrick (2003) provided evidence that Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI; Inwald, 1992),
MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989), and NEO PI-R scores significantly incremented one
another and demographic characteristics (sex, race, marital status, and academy class) in
the prediction of police academy exam scores among 79 recruits who passed PPE. MMPI-
2-RF scores have been shown to increment personal history data (Corey et al., 2018) and
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) scores (Gough & Bradley, 2002; M. D. Roberts
et al., 2018; R. M. Roberts et al., 2019) in police candidate PPE. Sellbom et al. (2022)
demonstrated that Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen et al.,
2023) scores incremented MMPI-2-RF scores in predicting POST-10 ratings and post-hire
officer performance.

Present Study
This study evaluated the incremental validity of MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores above
and beyond one another in predicting POST-10 dimension ratings. Based on previous
research, we expected scores on each test to be meaningfully associated with POST-10 rat-
ings in a conceptually expected pattern. We expected scores from each test to predict unique
variance in POST-10 ratings, even after accounting for variance explained by scores on the
other test.
A secondary goal of this study was to report reliability statistics for MMPI-3 and NEO
PI-3 scores in PPE contexts. Although empirical support for the reliability of scores on both
the MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 in general populations is available (satisfying the POST Manual
requirement), published research has focused on the validity of scores in PPE contexts
rather than their reliability. For abnormal-range personality tests in particular, this may be
due to substantial range restriction observed in public safety candidate scores (due to both
pre-selection factors resulting in only well-adjusted candidates being tendered conditional
offers of employment and due to under-reporting). Range restriction results in underesti-
mates of the internal consistency reliability of scores, especially as characterized by the
4 Criminal Justice and Behavior

standard Cronbach’s alpha statistic. This study sought to address this gap by reporting
Cronbach’s alpha test statistics for MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores as well as the number of
items scored on each scale and standard errors of measurement (SEM), which account for
both internal consistency and the variability of scores, providing an indication of measure-
ment precision that is more robust to the effects of range restriction. As described in more
detail below, the present sample partially overlaps with that utilized by Whitman et al.
(2021) but includes novel analyses.

Method
Participants

The sample included 754 candidates (620 men and 134 women) who produced valid
MMPI-3 protocols during PPE, and for whom NEO PI-3 and POST-10 rating data were
available. Valid MMPI-3 protocols were defined as having Cannot Say (CNS) < 18,
Combined Response Consistency (CRIN), Variable Response Consistency (VRIN), and
True Response Consistency (TRIN) < 80T, and Infrequent Responses (F) and Infrequent
Psychopathology Responses (Fp) < 100T. Most (62.5%) participants were evaluated for
suitability for positions as police officers (of these, 11.9% were women), with the remaining
being evaluated for suitability as dispatchers (6.0%; of these, 73.3% women), firefighters
(6.1%; of these, 6.5% women), correctional officers (4.2%; of these, 34.4% women), secu-
rity/public safety officers (8.0%; of these, 10.0% women), conservation/park law enforce-
ment (10.6%; of these, 20.0% women), commercial vehicle enforcement (2.0%; of these
26.7% women), suicide prevention officers (0.4%; all three women), clerk (0.1%; one
woman), and deputy coroner (0.1%; one woman).
Of the present sample, 94.8% self-identified as having one ethnicity, 3.8% selected two,
and less than 1.0% selected three or more. Most (80.9%) identified as White, followed by
Black/African American (17.2%), Hispanic/Latinx (3.8%), American Indian/Alaska Native
(1.6%), Asian (0.7%), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.4%), or another race/ethnicity (1.2%).
The average age of participants was 30.06 (SD = 9.02) years old. More than half were never
married (56.4%), and the rest were married (33.9%), divorced (8.0%), separated (1.6%), or
widowed (0.1%). Regarding educational attainment, 4.4% of the sample had an advanced
degree, 34.5% had a bachelor’s degree, 13.1% had an associate degree, 10.7% had some
college credit but no degree, and 9.6% had a high school diploma or less. MMPI-3 and
record review data from 292 (38.7%) of the present participants were previously analyzed
by Whitman et al. (2021); however, no research has used these NEO PI-3 data, and this
study features novel analyses.

Measures

MMPI-3

The MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a, 2020b) is an updated and re-normed ver-
sion of the MMPI-2-RF and is composed of 335 true–false items. It includes 10 validity and
42 substantive scales measure constructs in five domains: internalizing/emotional dysfunc-
tion, thought dysfunction, externalizing/behavioral dysfunction, somatic/cognitive prob-
lems, and interpersonal functioning. Ben-Porath and Tellegen (2020b) provide extensive
reliability and validity data for the MMPI-3, including in two police candidate samples.
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 5

NEO PI-3

The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) operationalizes personality traits from the Five-
Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 2013). The most recent version, the NEO-PI-3
(McCrae et al., 2005) includes 240 items and assesses the Big Five factors (i.e., Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) as well as
30 facet traits (six facets per factor).

Record Review Form

This study utilized a record review form that was designed to assist in coding problems
in the POST-10 dimensions. The POST-10 dimensions include Emotional Regulation/Stress
Tolerance, Avoiding Substance Abuse and Other Risky Behaviors, Impulse Control/
Attention to Safety, Social Competence, Teamwork, Assertiveness/Persuasiveness,
Decision-Making/Judgment Adaptability/Flexibility, Conscientiousness/Dependability,
and Integrity/Ethics. Details about the development and validation of the POST-10 dimen-
sions are provided by Spilberg and Corey (2014/2022). Trained coders read the psychologi-
cal reports provided to the referring agency and used information from the reports to rate
each POST-10 dimension on a three-point scale: 1 (No Problems), 2 (Some/Possible
Problems), and 3 (Significant Problems). They were instructed to disregard a paragraph in
each report that described findings from the MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3 to minimize potential
criterion contamination; however, a similar instruction was not provided in relation to the
NEO PI-3 results. Two independent coders rated 150 (19.9%) candidates on the POST-10
dimensions, and interrater agreement was calculated using Gwet’s AC, which has been
shown to be a more robust estimate of interrater reliability when criterion prevalence, such
as ratings of likely Significant Problems, is low (e.g., Wongpakaran et al., 2013). We calcu-
lated Gwet’s AC using ordinal weights, allowing greater weight to be allocated to more
substantial disagreements given ordered rating categories. Reliability ranged from Gwet’s
AC = .83, 95% confidence interval = [.78, .88] (Impulsivity/Attention to Safety) to .98
[.97, 1.00] (Adaptability/Flexibility) with a median of .94, which has been characterized as
“almost perfect” (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Procedure

Police officer candidates were evaluated at a private practice in the Midwestern United
States and were administered the NEO-PI-3 and either the MMPI-3 or the MMPI-2-RF-
Expanded (MMPI-2-RF-EX), which was designed to allow practitioners to score the
MMPI-2-RF while also collecting data on MMPI-3 items for test development and valida-
tion purposes. The MMPI-3 was scored from the MMPI-2-RF-EX item responses for
research purposes, and previous research indicated that MMPI-3 scores derived from
MMPI-3, and MMPI-2-RF-EX item responses are psychometrically equivalent (Hall et al.,
2022). After testing, each candidate participated in a clinical interview generally ranging
from 40 to 60 minutes. Psychologists provided comprehensive reports with recommenda-
tions based on testing, history data, behavioral observations, and an interview. Reports were
retrospectively reviewed by research assistants who rated candidates as having no prob-
lems, some/possible problems, or significant problems on each of the POST-10 dimensions.
Prior to reviewing reports, research assistants were trained to produce ratings with less than
6 Criminal Justice and Behavior

10% discrepancy from a set of “gold standard” practice cases. Although the evaluators who
wrote the reports had access to candidate’s MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3 findings, criterion con-
tamination was mitigated by specifically instructing the research assistants to disregard the
MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3 interpretation paragraph in each report, and to make determina-
tions solely using other information. However, research assistants used NEO PI-3 interpre-
tation paragraphs to inform POST-10 problem ratings, resulting in criterion contamination
(see Discussion section for implications). This study was approved by the Kent State
University Institutional Review Board (protocol #17-322).

Analysis Plan

First, we calculated means, SD, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability esti-
mates, and SEM for MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scale scores. We then calculated correlations
between scores on each test and the POST-10 dimension ratings. Consistent with Whitman
et al. (2021), we considered correlations with magnitudes r ≥ │.20│ to be practically
meaningful for analyses using self-report (i.e., NEO PI-3 or MMPI-3) and researcher rating
(POST-10 ratings) data. Next, we calculated correlations between NEO PI-3 and MMPI-3
scores and interpreted associations with magnitudes r ≥ │.40│ as practically meaningful
due to shared method variance. We then evaluated the incremental utility of each test beyond
the other in predicting POST-10 ratings. We conducted hierarchical ordinal logit regression
analyses, in which we entered scales that were meaningfully associated with the respective
POST-10 dimension as predictors. We conducted separate regression analyses for each hier-
archical level of the tests (e.g., separate analyses for H-O and RC scales) to prevent multi-
collinearity due to item overlap. For the first set of regression analyses, NEO PI-3 scores
were entered in Step 1, followed by MMPI-3 scores in Step 2. The order was reversed for
the second set of analyses.

Results
Descriptive Statistics

First, we calculated means and SD (see Tables 1 and 2, respectively). As in previous

research, MMPI-3 under-reporting scores were meaningfully higher than in the general
population, with mean scores on Uncommon Virtues (L) and Adjustment Validity (K) of
56.51T and 64.72T, respectfully. Mean scores on MMPI-3 substantive scales were mean-
ingfully lower than in the general population, with nearly all falling more than half an SD
(≥ 5T) below than the normative sample mean. The median mean score was 42.49T, nearly
a full SD below the normative sample mean. MMPI-3 scores were less variable than in the
normative sample, which has an SD of 10T. Substantive scale score SD ranged from 1.84T
(Suicide/Death Ideation; SUI) to 8.71T (Self-Importance; SFI). The median SD was 5.83,
nearly half the normative sample value.
Mean scores on the NEO PI-3 were closer to the normal-range than MMPI-3 scores,
except in the Neuroticism domain, which were all below 40T. In the Extraversion domain,
E1 (Warmth) and E3 (Assertiveness) were slightly higher than 50T, at 55.83 and 58.36T,
respectively. In the Openness domain, most mean scores fell from 45T to 55T, with the
exception of O1 (Fantasy) and O3 (Feelings), which were slightly lower (42.66T and
44.34T, respectively). In the Agreeableness domain, mean scores on A1 (Trust) and A3
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 7

Table 1: MMPI-3 Score Descriptive and Reliability Statistics (n = 754)

Number of
Scale M SD items α SEM

Validity Scales
CRIN: Combined Response Inconsistency 38.36 5.55 86 .23 4.87
VRIN: Variable Response Inconsistency 39.80 5.58 53 .39 4.36
TRIN: True Response Inconsistency 52.49F 4.86 33 .14 4.51
F: Infrequent Responses 41.86 1.95 35 .33 1.60
Fp: Infrequent Psychopathology Responses 42.19 3.45 21 .14 3.20
Fs: Infrequent Somatic Responses 44.21 3.90 16 .32 3.22
FBS: Symptom Validity Scale 44.49 5.55 30 .39 4.33
RBS: Response Bias Scale 44.65 5.63 28 .17 5.13
L: Uncommon Virtues 56.51 12.19 14 .76 5.97
K: Adjustment Validity 64.72 7.77 14 .24 6.77
Higher-Order (H-O) Scales
EID: Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction 37.71 4.87 42 .36 3.90
THD: Thought Dysfunction 41.80 6.24 27 .58 4.04
BXD: Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction 42.52 6.19 24 .69 3.45
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
RCd: Demoralization 38.51 3.85 17 .58 2.50
RC1: Somatic Complaints 39.85 5.27 21 .54 3.57
RC2: Low Positive Emotions 42.25 5.97 14 .41 4.59
RC4: Antisocial Behaviors 43.58 6.45 14 .59 4.13
RC6: Ideas of Persecution 43.22 6.20 14 .68 3.51
RC7: Dysfunctional Negative Emotions 38.88 5.13 19 .71 2.76
RC8: Aberrant Experiences 41.82 6.32 18 .57 4.14
RC9: Hypomanic Activation 43.39 7.15 15 .71 3.85
Specific Problems (SP) Scales
MLS: Malaise 35.93 4.67 7 .47 3.40
NUC: Neurological Complaints 42.74 6.43 10 .45 4.77
EAT: Eating Concerns 44.57 2.88 5 .28 2.44
COG: Cognitive Complaints 40.41 4.56 11 .70 2.50
SUI: Suicidal/Death Ideation 44.23 1.84 7 .12 1.73
HLP: Helplessness/Hopelessness 41.49 3.94 7 .11 3.72
SFD: Self-Doubt 41.43 3.86 7 .47 2.81
NFC: Inefficacy 40.68 4.86 9 .55 3.26
STR: Stress 41.32 5.27 6 .35 4.25
WRY: Worry 39.54 4.61 7 .69 2.57
CMP: Compulsivity 47.29 8.42 8 .68 4.76
ARX: Anxiety-Related Experiences 39.79 4.51 15 .50 3.19
ANP: Anger Proneness 39.65 4.74 12 .64 2.84
BRF: Behavior-Restricting Fears 44.17 4.01 7 .17 3.65
FML: Family Problems 41.29 5.57 10 .47 4.06
JCP: Juvenile Conduct Problems 45.20 7.04 7 .54 4.77
SUB: Substance Abuse 42.71 5.33 9 .39 4.16
IMP: Impulsivity 42.45 6.21 6 .56 4.12
ACT: Activation 45.64 8.17 8 .65 4.83
AGG: Aggression 42.76 5.90 6 .32 4.87
CYN: Cynicism 41.48 8.08 13 .82 3.43
SFI: Self-Importance 51.24 8.71 10 .69 4.85
DOM: Dominance 49.60 7.86 9 .53 5.39

(continued)
8 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Table 1. (continued)

Number of
Scale M SD items α SEM

DSF: Disaffiliativeness 42.81 4.89 7 .54 3.32

SAV: Social Avoidance 45.04 7.45 9 .72 3.94
SHY: Shyness 42.01 5.93 7 .65 3.51
Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales
AGGR: Aggressiveness 47.26 5.75 15 .55 3.86
PSYC: Psychoticism 42.62 6.43 20 .47 4.68
DISK: Disconstraint 43.86 6.01 18 .67 3.45
NEGE: Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism 39.69 4.64 15 .68 2.62
INTR: Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality 45.21 6.95 14 .70 3.81

Note. MMPI-3 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3; α = Cronbach’s alpha; SEM = standard error of
measurement.

(Altruism) were higher than 50T (55.50T and 56.97T, respectively). Scores in the
Conscientiousness domain were relatively high, with all but C2 (Order) ≥ 55T. Not surpris-
ingly given that the NEO PI-3 measures normal-range characteristics, scores on this mea-
sure were more variable than MMPI-3 scores, with all SD falling above the normative 10T
SD (median SD = 13.78T).

Reliability Estimates

Next, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability estimates and SEM
for MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores (see Tables 1 and 2, respectively). Cronbach’s alpha
internal consistency estimates were generally low for the MMPI-3 (median substantive
scale α = .56), which was expected, given the low variability of test scores (median SD =
5.83). SEM values, however, were also low, indicating good measurement precision when
accounting for both internal consistency and score variability (median SEM = 3.77T). SEM
values for MMPI-3 substantive scale scores ranged from 1.73T (SUI) to 5.39T (Dominance
[DOM]). Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency estimates for NEO PI-3 scores were gener-
ally adequate (median α = .71), which was expected, given the relatively large amount of
score variability (median SD = 13.78T). SEM values for NEO PI-3 scores ranged from
3.68T (N [Neuroticism]) to 9.96T (N4 [Self-Consciousness]), with a median of 7.36T,
which is four T-score points higher than the median MMPI-3 scale SEM (3.77), indicating
that although NEO-PI-3 alpha levels were higher, when the effects of range restriction are
taken into account, MMPI-3 scores evidenced less measurement error.

Correlational Analyses

Correlations between MMPI-3 scores and POST-10 dimension ratings are reported in Table
3. As previously reported using a subset of the present data (Whitman et al., 2021), Emotional
Regulation/Stress Tolerance problem ratings were meaningfully associated with most MMPI-3
scores at the r ≥│.20│ benchmark. Problem ratings on the Avoiding Substance Use and
Other Risk-Taking Behaviors dimension were meaningfully associated with Substance Abuse
(SUB) scores. Impulse Control/Attention to Safety ratings were associated with scores within
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 9

Table 2: NEO PI-3 Score Descriptive and Reliability Statistics (n = 754)

Number of
Scale M SD items α SEM

N: Neuroticism 33.39 12.25 48 .91 3.68

N1: Anxiety 36.31 12.13 8 .72 6.42
N2: Angry Hostility 35.26 13.23 8 .74 6.75
N3: Depression 37.58 11.98 8 .68 6.78
N4: Self-Consciousness 37.12 12.26 8 .34 9.96
N5: Impulsiveness 33.41 13.14 8 .67 7.55
N6: Vulnerability 34.69 12.06 8 .83 4.97
E: Extraversion 51.87 14.36 48 .86 5.37
E1: Warmth 55.83 15.81 8 .76 7.75
E2: Gregariousness 53.39 14.97 8 .71 8.06
E3: Assertiveness 58.36 14.90 8 .68 8.43
E4: Activity 50.49 13.26 8 .47 9.65
E5: Excitement-Seeking 54.96 14.78 8 .57 9.69
E6: Positive Emotions 53.26 14.22 8 .72 7.52
O: Openness 50.89 15.06 48 .85 5.83
O1: Fantasy 42.66 13.46 8 .68 7.61
O2: Aesthetics 47.70 14.61 8 .82 6.20
O3: Feelings 44.34 13.75 8 .56 9.12
O4: Actions 54.66 15.28 8 .59 9.78
O5: Ideas 54.71 15.40 8 .81 6.71
O6: Values 53.49 14.93 8 .63 9.08
A: Agreeableness 53.51 13.45 48 .86 5.03
A1: Trust 55.50 13.54 8 .82 5.74
A2: Straightforwardness 54.73 13.68 8 .64 8.21
A3: Altruism 56.97 13.70 8 .73 7.12
A4: Compliance 53.87 14.05 8 .61 8.77
A5: Modesty 50.02 14.17 8 .65 8.38
A6: Tendermindedness 54.25 13.98 8 .57 9.17
C: Conscientiousness 57.96 13.77 48 .92 3.89
C1: Competence 60.93 16.49 8 .77 7.91
C2: Order 51.96 13.49 8 .69 7.51
C3: Dutifulness 59.19 13.76 8 .62 8.48
C4: Achievement Striving 62.52 14.01 8 .74 7.14
C5: Self-Discipline 61.45 13.78 8 .85 5.34
C6: Deliberation 58.19 14.17 8 .67 8.14

Note. NEO PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3; α = Cronbach’s alpha; SEM = standard error of measurement.

the BXD domain (BXD, Antisocial Behaviors [RC4], RC9, Juvenile Conduct Problems [JCP],
SUB, and Disconstraint [DISK]). Assertiveness problem ratings were associated with EID,
RC2, and Self-Doubt (SFD) scores. Social Competence problem ratings were associated with
Thought Dysfunction (THD), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), DSF, SAV, and INTR scores.
Teamwork problem ratings were associated with several MMPI-3 scales in the EID (EID,
RCd, RC7, Helplessness/Hopelessness [HLP], Inefficacy [NFC], ANP), THD (THD, RC6,
RC8, PSYC), and BXD (RC9, FML, ACT, CYN), and interpersonal (DSF) domains. Decision-
Making and Judgment problem ratings were associated with NUC and NFC scores. There
were no meaningful correlations between MMPI-3 scores and the Adaptability/Flexibility,
Conscientiousness/Dependability, or Integrity/Ethics dimensions.
10
Table 3: Correlations Between MMPI-3 Scores and POST-10 Dimension Ratings

Emotional
regulation Avoiding Impulse Decision-
and substance use control/ making
stress and other risk- attention Social and Adaptability/ Conscientiousness/ Integrity/
Scale tolerance taking behavior to safety Assertiveness competence Teamwork judgment flexibility dependability ethics

EID: Emotional/Internalizing .43 .04 .04 .20 .19 .21 .18 .06 .09 –.05
Dysfunction
THD: Thought Dysfunction .27 .12 .09 .04 .21 .31 .16 –.04 .18 .04
BXD: Behavioral/ .22 .18 .36 .02 .06 .15 .17 –.09 .18 .08
Externalizing Dysfunction
RCd: Demoralization .35 .04 .09 .17 .12 .22 .19 –.01 .11 –.01
RC1: Somatic Complaints .29 .07 .12 .06 .07 .18 .16 –.06 .12 .03
RC2: Low Positive Emotions .12 .01 –.08 .21 .17 .10 .03 .13 .02 –.10
RC4: Antisocial Behaviors .19 .15 .35 .03 .00 .11 .15 –.09 .18 .10
RC6: Ideas of Persecution .24 .03 .09 .01 .24 .35 .14 –.05 .17 .01
RC7: Dysfunctional Negative .48 .07 .11 .14 .18 .26 .19 .02 .16 .03
Emotions
RC8: Aberrant Experiences .26 .13 .13 .08 .14 .23 .17 –.05 .15 .05
RC9: Hypomanic Activation .28 .11 .21 .02 .07 .21 .16 –.05 .12 .02
MLS: Malaise .24 –.01 .10 .12 .11 .13 .11 .04 .13 –.02
NUC: Neurological .18 .12 .12 –.01 .04 .17 .20 –.04 .11 .06
Complaints
EAT: Eating Concerns .13 .00 .05 .05 .03 .00 .04 .02 .00 .03
COG: Cognitive Complaints .26 .05 .11 .09 .14 .19 .12 .03 .17 .01
SUI: Suicide/Death Ideation .17 .17 .06 .01 .03 .03 .10 .05 .02 –.01
HLP: Helplessness/ .18 –.01 .05 –.01 .11 .20 .08 –.04 .06 .03
Hopelessness
SFD: Self-Doubt .25 .00 .01 .20 .09 .16 .14 .00 .10 –.01
NFC: Inefficacy .38 .08 .09 .13 .14 .23 .22 .02 .19 .00
STR: Stress .36 .04 .05 .06 .08 .11 .16 –.03 .04 –.05
WRY: Worry .44 .00 .06 .17 .14 .17 .16 .07 .12 –.03
CMP: Compulsivity .25 .04 .10 .06 .11 .16 .13 –.02 .04 .01

(continued)
 Table 3. (continued)

Emotional
regulation Avoiding Impulse Decision-
and substance use control/ making
stress and other risk- attention Social and Adaptability/ Conscientiousness/ Integrity/
Scale tolerance taking behavior to safety Assertiveness competence Teamwork judgment flexibility dependability ethics

ARX: Anxiety-Related .39 .08 .10 .05 .08 .14 .15 –.01 .08 –.03
Experiences
ANP: Anger Proneness .35 .03 .06 .10 .18 .27 .14 .10 .10 .02
BRF: Behavior-Restricting .22 .00 .04 .04 .08 .06 .06 –.01 .02 .04
Fears
FML: Family Problems .24 .08 .13 .08 .10 .20 .19 –.06 .14 .07
JCP: Juvenile Conduct .13 .06 .31 .00 .01 .14 .16 –.08 .18 .15
Problems
SUB: Substance Abuse .07 .25 .24 .04 .02 .01 .05 –.06 .12 .03
IMP: Impulsivity .19 .07 .18 .01 .07 .19 .16 –.05 .07 –.01
ACT: Activation .26 .08 .15 .01 .05 .20 .14 –.05 .12 .02
AGG: Aggression .27 .12 .19 .06 .14 .16 .15 .03 .10 .01
CYN: Cynicism .28 .09 .08 .11 .19 .34 .18 .00 .11 .00
SFI: Self-Importance –.05 .03 .07 –.19 –.05 .04 .02 –.11 .02 .10
DOM: Dominance .10 .02 .10 –.17 –.02 .11 .06 –.10 .10 .10
DSF: Disaffiliativeness .15 –.04 –.03 .08 .22 .20 .07 .12 .10 .04
SAV: Social Avoidance .13 –.08 –.11 .16 .24 .12 .03 .19 –.05 –.07
SHY: Shyness .27 .11 .02 .18 .11 .13 .09 .03 .05 –.04
AGGR: Aggressiveness .13 .04 .15 –.14 .00 .13 .07 –.10 .10 .09
PSYC: Psychoticism .24 .13 .07 .05 .16 .24 .17 –.03 .15 .05
DISK: Disconstraint .18 .19 .36 .03 .02 .13 .16 –.10 .16 .09
NEGE: Negative .46 .03 .06 .11 .13 .18 .16 .01 .11 .00
Emotionality/Neuroticism
INTR: Introversion/Low .12 –.08 –.11 .16 .23 .12 .01 .19 –.05 –.09
Positive Emotionality

Note. Bolded r ≥ |.20|. MMPI-3 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3; POST-10 = California Commission on Peace Officer Selection and Training
Psychological Screening Dimensions.

11
12 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Correlations between NEO PI-3 and POST-10 dimension ratings are reported in Table 4.
Problem ratings on the Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance dimension were meaning-
fully associated with many scales in the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness domains.
Assertiveness problem ratings were meaningfully associated with low Extraversion and E3
(Assertiveness) scores. Social Competence Problem ratings were also associated with low
Extraversion and E2 (Gregariousness) scores. Teamwork problem ratings were associated
with Neuroticism and select N facets (N2 [Angry Hostility] and N3 [Depression]) and low
Agreeableness and A1 scores. Adaptability/Flexibility problem ratings were negatively
associated with O5 (Ideas) scores. No NEO PI-3 scores were meaningfully associated with
ratings on the Substance Use and Other Risk-Taking Behavior, Decision-Making and
Judgment, Conscientiousness/Dependability, or Integrity/Ethics dimensions.
Finally, associations between MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores are reported in Supplementary
Tables 1–3. Neuroticism and its factor scores were primarily associated with MMPI-3
scores in the Emotional/Internalizing (EID) domain. Extraversion scores were meaning-
fully associated with MMPI-3 internalizing and interpersonal scale scores associated with
detachment. Agreeableness and A1 scores were negatively associated with MMPI-3 CYN
scores, while A5 (Modesty) scores had a meaningful negative association with MMPI-3 SFI
scores. In the Conscientiousness domain, C6 scores had meaningful negative association
with disinhibition-related MMPI-3 scale scores.

Incremental Validity

Next, we evaluated the incremental validity of NEO PI-3 scores above and beyond
MMPI-3 scores. We also evaluated the incremental validity of MMPI-3 scores beyond NEO
PI-3 scores. To do so, we conducted hierarchical ordinal logit regression analyses predicting
POST-10 dimension ratings, which are reported in Table 5 for MMPI-3 scores entered first,
followed by NEO PI-3 scores second, and in Table 6 for NEO PI-3 scores entered first, fol-
lowed by MMPI-3 scores. We entered test scores as predictors if they produced meaningful
correlations with the pertinent POST-10 dimension. We also conducted analyses by scale
family to account for item overlap across the hierarchical structures of each test. Specifically,
we conducted analyses with NEO PI-3 domain scores incrementing MMPI-3 H-O, RC, and
PSY-5 scores (and vice versa), and NEO PI-3 facet scores incrementing MMPI-3 SP scores
(and vice versa). Statistically significant predictors contribute uniquely to prediction with
odds ratios indicating the degree of practical utility (i.e., the effect size). The proportional
odds assumption was violated for models with MMPI-3 PSY-5 and NEO PI-3 Factor scales
predicting Social Competence, as indicated by a statistically significant likelihood-ratio test
of proportionality of odds across response categories (χ2[2] = 20.22, p < .001), so we did
not report results for these two analyses.
In all analyses, there were statistically significant chi-square changes from Block 1 to
Block 2, indicating incremental utility of the second test beyond the first, except when pre-
dicting Social Competence. In this case, NEO PI-3 E2 (Gregariousness) was a nonsignifi-
cant predictor of Social Competence when it was entered in the second step, following
MMPI-3 DSF and SAV scores. In most cases, individual predictors from each test accounted
for significant unique variance (except in models predicting Emotional Regulation/Stress
Tolerance, in which many predictors were entered, resulting in significant prediction of
unique variance for any one MMPI-3 SP score predictor). Significant odds ratios generally
 Table 4: Correlations Between NEO PI-3 Scores and POST-10 Dimension Ratings

Emotional Avoiding
regulation substance use Impulse control/ Decision-
and stress and other risk- attention to Social making and Adaptability/ Conscientiousness/ Integrity/
Scale tolerance taking behavior safety Assertiveness competence Teamwork judgment flexibility depend-ability ethics

N .43 .07 .18 .19 .12 .22 .17 .04 .08 –.05
E –.11 .07 .09 –.23 –.20 –.15 .01 –.14 .01 .06
O –.02 .02 .02 –.06 –.06 –.06 .02 –.19 .08 .06
A –.20 –.12 –.20 –.07 –.15 –.23 –.13 .01 –.10 –.02
C –.26 –.04 –.19 –.18 –.07 –.14 –.10 .00 –.17 .01
N1 .43 .06 .09 .15 .11 .17 .15 .06 .07 –.08
N2 .34 .05 .17 .12 .13 .21 .15 .04 .04 –.03
N3 .38 .01 .15 .18 .14 .23 .18 .05 .12 .00
N4 .33 .06 .10 .19 .08 .13 .12 .04 .03 –.06
N5 .32 .10 .23 .13 .05 .18 .12 –.03 .07 –.06
N6 .31 .07 .15 .16 .07 .17 .12 .01 .09 –.04
E1 –.13 –.02 –.02 –.15 –.18 –.18 –.07 –.09 –.02 .03
E2 –.10 .02 .05 –.14 –.20 –.16 –.02 –.11 .02 .03
E3 –.14 –.01 .03 –.30 –.13 –.07 –.02 –.05 –.05 .07
E4 –.05 .08 .09 –.16 –.08 –.07 .06 –.03 –.05 –.02
E5 .00 .18 .13 –.08 –.08 –.02 .05 –.13 .11 .06
E6 –.04 .04 .06 –.12 –.13 –.12 .04 –.12 .02 .07
O1 .09 .04 .03 –.01 .00 .07 .08 –.13 .02 .02
O2 .06 .01 .05 –.02 –.03 –.01 .02 –.12 .10 .09
O3 .10 .06 .06 –.02 –.04 –.06 .04 –.04 .01 –.04
O4 –.16 –.02 .01 –.09 –.05 –.07 –.04 –.18 .04 .06
O5 –.06 –.02 –.01 –.03 –.04 –.04 .00 –.22 .05 .04
O6 –.14 .02 –.09 –.08 –.09 –.14 –.04 –.01 .04 .01
A1 –.20 –.07 –.12 –.12 –.19 –.32 –.16 –.01 –.09 –.01
A2 –.15 –.14 –.16 –.05 –.07 –.09 –.08 .04 –.06 .00
A3 –.17 –.04 –.11 –.11 –.12 –.15 –.08 –.04 –.10 .01

(continued)

13
14
Table 4. (continued)

Emotional Avoiding
regulation substance use Impulse control/ Decision-
and stress and other risk- attention to Social making and Adaptability/ Conscientiousness/ Integrity/
Scale tolerance taking behavior safety Assertiveness competence Teamwork judgment flexibility depend-ability ethics

A4 –.14 –.08 –.19 .00 –.02 –.14 –.07 .08 –.06 .00
A5 –.05 –.07 –.10 .09 –.03 –.03 –.08 .02 –.02 –.03
A6 –.08 –.07 –.10 –.09 –.15 –.14 –.05 –.07 –.05 –.04
C1 –.27 –.02 –.17 –.17 –.07 –.17 –.11 –.01 –.12 .02
C2 –.08 –.04 –.09 –.14 –.02 .00 .03 .01 –.17 .02
C3 –.23 –.04 –.18 –.13 –.06 –.12 –.09 .01 –.18 –.01
C4 –.20 .00 –.09 –.19 –.08 –.12 –.05 –.04 –.12 .02
C5 –.26 –.04 –.17 –.17 –.07 –.15 –.10 –.02 –.15 –.02
C6 –.22 –.06 –.22 –.07 –.06 –.12 –.15 .05 –.07 .02

Note. Bolded r ≥ |.20|. NEO PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3; POST-10 = California Commission on Peace Officer Selection and Training Psychological Screening
Dimensions; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; N1 = Anxiety; N2 = Angry Hostility; N3 = Depression; N4
= Self-Consciousness; N5 = Impulsiveness; N6 = Vulnerability; E1 = Warmth; E2 = Gregariousness; E3 = Assertiveness; E4 = Activity; E5 = Excitement-Seeking; E6
= Positive Emotions; O1 = Fantasy; O2 = Aesthetics; O3 = Feelings; O4 = Actions; O5 = Ideas; O6 = Values; A1 = Trust; A2 = Straightforwardness; A3 = Altruism;
A4 = Compliance; A5 = Modesty; A6 = Tender-Mindedness; C1 = Competence; C2 = Order; C3 = Dutifulness; C4 = Achievement Striving; C5 = Self-Discipline; C6
= Deliberation.
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 15

Table 5: Hierarchical Ordinal Logit Regression Models for NEO PI-3 Scores Incrementing MMPI-3
Scores in Predictions of POST-10 Ratings (n = 754)

Significant predictors in final model

POST-10 dimension X2 ΔX2 (odds ratio)

Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance

MMPI-3 H-O and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 143.70*** EID (1.21***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 202.02*** 58.32*** N (1.06***)
MMPI-3 RC and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 179.49*** RC1 (1.32***), RC7 (1.36***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 226.78*** 47.29*** N (1.05***)
MMPI-3 PSY-5 and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 143.88*** NEGE (1.47***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 209.71*** 63.83*** N (1.05***)
MMPI-3 SP and NEO PI-3 Facet Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 199.04*** —
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 236.81*** 37.77*** N1 (1.08*)
Impulse Control/Attention to Safety
MMPI-3 H-O and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 94.30*** BXD (1.31***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 102.11*** 7.81** A (0.98**)
MMPI-3 RC and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 96.55*** RC4 (1.42***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 106.84*** 10.29** A (0.98**)
MMPI-3 PSY-5 and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 92.95*** DISK (1.37***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 105.29*** 12.34*** A (0.98**)
MMPI-3 SP and NEO PI-3 Facet Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 82.86*** JCP (1.54***), SUB (1.32**)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 104.83*** 21.97*** N5 (1.07*)
Assertiveness
MMPI-3 H-O and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 25.90*** EID (1.12**)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 53.95*** 28.05*** E (0.96***)
MMPI-3 RC and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 31.68*** RC2 (1.29**)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 53.84*** 22.16*** E (0.96***)
MMPI-3 SP and NEO PI-3 Facet Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 20.86*** SFD (1.44*)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 79.59*** 58.73*** E3 (0.77***)
Social Competence
MMPI-3 H-O and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3 H-O) 27.07*** THD (1.42***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 67.72*** 40.65*** E (0.96***)
MMPI-3 RC and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 31.65*** RC6 (1.55***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 71.51*** 39.86*** E (0.96***)
MMPI-3 SP and NEO PI-3 Facet Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 64.33*** DSF (1.38**), SAV (1.30***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 64.67*** .34 —

(continued)
16 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Table 5. (continued)

Significant predictors in final model

POST-10 dimension X2 ΔX2 (odds ratio)

Teamwork
MMPI-3 H-O and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 58.20*** THD (1.42***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 92.00*** 33.80*** A (0.95***)
MMPI-3 RC and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 71.58*** RC6 (1.49***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 101.81*** 30.23*** A (0.95***)
MMPI-3 PSY-5 and NEO PI-3 Factor Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 34.56*** PSYC (1.48***)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 77.66*** 43.10*** N (1.02*), A (0.95***)
MMPI-3 SP and NEO PI-3 Facet Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 106.43*** HLP (1.84*), CYN (1.14**)
Step 2 (NEO PI-3) 132.37*** 25.94*** A1 (0.85***)

Note. NEO PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3; MMPI-3 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3; POST-
10 = California Commission on Peace Officer Selection and Training Psychological Screening Dimensions; H-O
= Higher-Order; EID = Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction; N = Neuroticism; RC = Restructured Clinical; RC1
= Somatic Complaints; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; PSY-5 = Personality Psychopathology Five;
NEGE = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism; SP = Specific Problems; NFC = Inefficacy; WRY = Worry; ARX =
Anxiety-Related Experiences; N1 = Anxiety; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction; A = Agreeableness;
RC4 = Antisocial Behaviors; DISK = Disconstraint; JCP = Juvenile Conduct Problems; SUB = Substance Abuse;
N5 = Impulsivity; E = Extraversion; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; SFD = Self-Doubt; E3 = Assertiveness; THD
= Thought Dysfunction; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; INTR = Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality; DSF =
Disaffiliativeness; SAV = Social Avoidance; PSYC = Psychoticism; HLP = Helplessness/Hopelessness; CYN =
Cynicism; A1 = Trust.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

indicated practically meaningful predictive value. For example, in the first model described
in Table 5, odds of being rated as more problematic (significant problems vs. some/possible
problems vs. no problems) are increased by 1.06 times for every raw score point increase
on NEO PI-3 Neuroticism, and by 1.21 times for each raw score point increase on MMPI-3
EID. In most cases, MMPI-3 scores predicted greater variance in the outcome dimension
relative to NEO PI-3 scores (e.g., when entered in the Block 2 predicting Emotional
Regulation/Stress Tolerance, NEO PI-3 Neuroticism had a statistically significant odds
ratio of 1.06, whereas MMPI-3 EID yielded an odds ratio of 1.21).

Discussion
This study was the first to evaluate the utility of the MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 in combina-
tion during PPEs of public safety candidates. While the psychometric properties of each test
have been supported in this context separately, incremental validity is directly relevant to
practical standards and guidelines, which often require the use of an abnormal-range and a
normal-range test, as is the case with the California Commission on POST Psychological
Screening Manual (Spilberg & Corey, 2014/2022). This study indicated that both MMPI-3
and NEO PI-3 scores evidence not only good reliability and criterion validity, but also
incremental predictive utility above and beyond one another.
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 17

Table 6: Hierarchical Ordinal Logit Regression Models for MMPI-3 Scores Incrementing NEO PI-3
Scores in Predictions of POST-10 Ratings (n = 754)

Significant predictors in final

POST-10 dimension X2 ΔX2 model (odds ratio)

Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance

NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 H-O Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 167.06*** N (1.06***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 202.02*** 34.96*** EID (1.21***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 RC Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 167.06*** N (1.05***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 226.78*** 59.72*** RC1 (1.32***), RC7 (1.36***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 167.06*** N (1.05***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 209.71*** 42.65*** NEGE (1.47***)
NEO PI-3 Facet and MMPI-3 SP Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 183.22*** N1 (1.08*)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 236.81*** 53.59*** None
Impulse Control/Attention to Safety
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 H-O Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 26.70*** A (0.98***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 102.11*** 75.41*** BXD (1.31***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 RC Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 26.70*** A (0.98**)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 106.84*** 80.14*** RC4 (1.42***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 26.70*** A (0.98**)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 105.29*** 78.59*** DISK (1.37***)
NEO PI-3 Facet and MMPI-3 SP Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 46.18*** N5 (1.07*)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 104.83*** 58.65*** JCP (1.54***), SUB (1.32**)
Assertiveness
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 H-O Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 25.90*** E (0.96***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 53.95*** 28.05*** EID (1.12**)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 RC Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 46.41*** E (0.96***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 53.84*** 7.43** RC2 (1.29**)
NEO PI-3 Facet and MMPI-3 SP Scales
Step 1 (MMPI-3) 74.64*** E (0.77***)
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 79.59*** 4.95* SFD (1.44*)
Social Competence
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 H-O Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 38.67*** E (0.96***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 67.72*** 29.05*** THD (1.42***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 RC Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 38.67*** E (0.96***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 71.51*** 32.84*** RC6 (1.55***)
NEO PI-3 Facet and MMPI-3 SP Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 36.86*** —
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 64.67*** 27.81*** DSF (1.38**), SAV (1.30***)

(continued)
18 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Table 6. (Continued)

Significant predictors in final

POST-10 dimension X2 ΔX2 model (odds ratio)

Teamwork
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 H-O Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 61.21*** A (0.95***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 92.00*** 30.79*** THD (1.42***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 RC Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 61.21*** A (0.95***),
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 101.81*** 40.60*** RC6 (1.49 ***)
NEO PI-3 Factor and MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 61.21*** N (1.02*), A (0.95***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 77.66*** 16.45*** PSYC (1.48***)
NEO PI-3 Facet and MMPI-3 SP Scales
Step 1 (NEO PI-3) 100.33*** A1 (0.85***)
Step 2 (MMPI-3) 132.37*** 32.04*** HLP (1.84*), CYN (1.14**)

Note. MMPI-3 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3; NEO PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3; H-O
= Higher-Order; POST-10 = California Commission on Peace Officer Selection and Training Psychological
Screening Dimensions; N = Neuroticism; EID = Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction; RC = Restructured Clinical;
RC1 = Somatic Complaints; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; PSY-5 = Personality Psychopathology
Five; NEGE = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism; SP = Specific Problems; N1 = Anxiety; NFC = Inefficacy;
WRY = Worry; ARX = Anxiety-Related Experiences; A = Agreeableness; BXD = Behavioral/Externalizing
Dysfunction; RC4 = Antisocial Behaviors; DISK = Disconstraint; N5 = Impulsivity; JCP = Juvenile Conduct
Problems; SUB = Substance Abuse; E = Extraversion; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; SFD = Self-Doubt; E3
= Assertiveness; THD = Thought Dysfunction; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; INTR = Introversion/Low Positive
Emotionality; DSF = Disaffiliativeness; SAV = Social Avoidance; PSYC = Psychoticism; A1 = Trust; HLP =
Helplessness/Hopelessness; CYN = Cynicism.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Most importantly, this study sought to establish the incremental utility of MMPI-3 and
NEO PI-3 scores in public safety PPE. Indeed, the highly influential POST Psychological
Screening Manual requires psychologists conducting pre-employment evaluations of public
safety candidates to administer psychometric tests of both normal- and abnormal-range
personality attributes, and this study was one of the first to empirically demonstrate the util-
ity of this approach using the MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3. Ratings on five of the POST-10
dimensions were meaningfully associated with scale scores on both tests. In regression
models predicting ratings on those five dimensions, scores from both tests significantly
incremented one another in nearly every model. Of commonly used normal-range (e.g.,
CPI-434, NEO PI-R, NEO PI-3, MPQ) and abnormal-range (e.g., MMPI-2-RF, MMPI-3,
PAI, IPI-2) personality tests in PPE evaluations, only two other pairings have been demon-
strated to have similar incremental utility, including the MMPI-2-RF and CPI (Tarescavage,
Fischler, et al., 2015) and MMPI-2-RF and MPQ (Sellbom et al., 2022).
In addition, this study was one of the first peer-reviewed publications to report reliability
estimates for commonly used tests in public safety candidate samples. The relative paucity
of such information in the literature is likely attributable to methodological limitations.
Specifically, when scores have limited variability, as is the case in post-offer PPE, Cronbach’s
alpha internal consistency estimates will underestimate reliability. Therefore, reporting
these values alone could be misleading. We reported additional information, including SEM
and the number of items scored on each scale, to provide a more complete picture of the
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 19

reliability of the scale scores. As expected with a psychopathology measure administered to

a public safety candidate sample, MMPI-3 (but not NEO PI-3) scores evidenced restricted
variability. Consequently, the disparity between Cronbach’s alpha and SEM values was
larger for MMPI-3 scores, with the latter indicating good reliability. SEM is a more appro-
priate measurement precision indicator in PPE and other contexts where range restriction is
evidenced, as it accounts not only for internal consistency levels but also for sample SD.

Convergence With Previous Research

This study also contributed to the available literature supporting the criterion validity of
MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in public safety pre-employment context, as we observed
practically meaningful associations between POST-10 dimension ratings and conceptually
related test scores. For example, POST-10 Assertiveness was most strongly associated with
MMPI-3 EID, RC2, and SFD, and NEO PI-3 Extraversion and E3 (Assertiveness), which
were the most closely related scales at each level of the tests’ respective hierarchies. No
prior literature has directly linked NEO PI scores to the POST-10 dimensions.
The present results are largely consistent, however, with previous research that reported
correlations between MMPI-2-RF scores and POST-10 dimension ratings in other samples.
For example, in one study, psychologists rated candidates on each POST-10 dimension
using psychological testing, self-reported personal history, agency-provided background
investigations, and clinical interviews by assigning scores of 1 (low risk; no risk-related
findings identified), 2 (moderate risk; risk-related findings were indicated by one of the
sources), or 3 (high risk; risk-related findings were indicated by two or more of the sources;
Sellbom et al., 2022). Similar to the present findings, these authors also reported, for exam-
ple, that Assertiveness ratings were most strongly associated with EID and RC2. However,
Sellbom et al. (2022) also found meaningful associations between MMPI-2-RF scores and
Adaptability/Flexibility, Conscientiousness/Dependability, and Integrity/Ethics dimen-
sions, whereas this study did not. This may have been due to methodological differences, as
this study relied on research assistants’ ratings using information in the report, whereas
Sellbom et al. (2022) utilized the assessing psychologists’ ratings using testing, history,
background investigations, and interviews. More research using these and other methodolo-
gies may help elucidate why differences may have occurred. Altogether, establishing the
convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity (or, put simply, the construct validity) of
test scores is important per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s)
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) for implementing Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act. These guidelines are intended to aid employers in determining if
tests used in personnel selection are lawful, and one outlined method of establishing the
validity/legality of a tool is to establish construct validity.

Limitations and Future Directions

The primary limitation of this study was the potential for criterion contamination.
Psychologists used both MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores to describe candidates and write the
psychological reports, which trained research assistants then referenced to rate the POST-10
dimensions. As these data were derived from a study primarily focused on the validation of
MMPI-3 scores in public safety PPEs, the research assistants were instructed to disregard the
paragraph in the report that summarized MMPI findings to mitigate potential criterion con-
tamination. However, no instructions were given to disregard the paragraph summarizing
20 Criminal Justice and Behavior

NEO PI-3 findings, leading to greater risk of criterion contamination for these scores relative
to MMPI-3 scores. Therefore, the ability of MMPI-3 scores to incrementally predict POST-
10 ratings beyond NEO PI-3 scores demonstrates even stronger support for their criterion
validity. Criterion contamination notwithstanding, the present findings were consistent with
prior research, particularly on MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 scores (e.g., Sellbom et al., 2022;
Whitman et al., 2023a, 2023b), which mitigates criterion contamination concerns. Moreover,
based on methodology used by Whitman et al. (2021), we applied a higher threshold for
meaningfulness relative to other studies in these contexts where range restriction attenuates
the magnitude of correlations. For example, many studies utilized thresholds of r ≥ │.15│
(R. M. Roberts et al., 2019; Sellbom et al., 2007; Tarescavage, Brewster, et al., 2015;
Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Tarescavage, Corey, Gupton, & Ben-Porath,
2015), whereas we applied a threshold of r ≥ │.20│. Future research could extend these
results by administering the MMPI-3 or NEO PI-3 along with other tests that psychologists
can use for the purposes of the PPE, so that they do not use MMPI-3 or NEO PI-3 scores for
the PPE; as a result, the validity of MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores for predicting post-hire
performance and psychologist recommendations can be researched without the effects of
criterion contamination.
Other limitations include the generalizability of the current sample insofar as it was com-
prised predominantly of men (82.2%) and individuals who identified as White (80.9%).
Future research could over-sample for candidates who identify as women or another gender
identity and people of color to increase confidence in the external validity of the present
results. This contribution would be especially important given evidence that police depart-
ments are becoming more diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity, and other
demographics (Goodison, 2022). Future research should also extend this study by evaluat-
ing the incremental predictive validity of MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores with respect to
prospective criteria, such as probation period field performance ratings, civilian review
board or internal affairs complaints, and engagement in post-hire problem behaviors.
Research could also be done on the reliability and validity of normal-range tests in can-
didates who have not yet received conditional offers of employment (COE), as these tests
can be used to “screen-in” applicants with preferable characteristics, and range restriction
will have a lesser impact at this stage; the same cannot legally be done using abnormal-
range tests, which can only be administered after a COE has been tendered. In addition, no
police or other public safety comparison groups are available for the NEO PI-3. Although
this study reported means and SD for a composite group of public safety candidates, we
would not recommend utilizing these as a comparison group due to the variance in occupa-
tion and the disproportional number of men (82.2%). Future research could report descrip-
tive statistics for nongendered NEO PI-3 comparison groups, consistent with the Civil
Rights Act of 1991. Finally, Whitman et al. (2021) reported results indicating minimal dif-
ferences in MMPI-3 validity coefficients across police candidates and other public safety
candidates using a subset of the present sample, and future research could investigate
whether NEO PI-3 scores similarly demonstrate comparable validity across public safety
candidates for various occupations.
Overall, this study provided empirical support for the utility of a commonly used abnor-
mal-range personality test, the MMPI-3, and a normal-range personality test, the NEO PI-3,
in the context of PPEs of public safety candidates. These findings support the California
Commission on POST Psychological Screening Manual (Spilberg & Corey, 2014/2022),
which requires the use of data from abnormal- and normal-range personality tests.
 Whitman et al. / MMPI-3 and NEO PI-3 scores in PPE 21

ORCID iD
Megan R. Whitman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0150-453X

Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material is available in the online version of this article at http://journals.sagepub.com/home/cjb.

References
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020a). MMPI-3: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of
Minnesota Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020b). MMPI-3: Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. University of Minnesota Press.
Chibnall, J. T., & Detrick, P. (2003). The NEO PI-R, Inwald Personality Inventory, and MMPI-2 in the prediction of police
academy performance: A case for incremental validity. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2), 233–248. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02885696
Corey, D. M., McElroy, H. K., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Statewide psychological screening mandates for police candi-
dates in the United States: A review and comparison to the standard of practice. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 54(2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000487
Corey, D. M., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2018). Risks associated with overcontrolled behavior in police officer
recruits. Psychological Assessment, 30(12), 1691–1702. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000607
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.
Detrick, P., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Sellbom, M. (2016). Associations between MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) and Inwald
Personality Inventory (IPI) scale scores in a law enforcement preemployment screening sample. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 31(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9172-7
Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2006). NEO PI-R personality characteristics of high-performing entry-level police officers.
Psychological Sciences, 3(4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.3.4.274
Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2020). Frame-of-reference effects on police officer applicant responses to the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35(3), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-
9313-5
Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Call, C. (2010). Demand effects on positive response distortion by police officer applicants on
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 410–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
0223891.2010.497401
Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Luebbert, M. C. (2004). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory as predictor of police academy
performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(6), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804268751
Goodison, S. E. (2022). Local police departments personnel, 2020. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (2002). California Psychological Inventory manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hall, J. T., Menton, W. H., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Examining the psychometric equivalency of MMPI-3 scale scores derived
from the MMPI-3 and the MMPI-2-RF-EX. Assessment, 29(4), 842–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121991921
Inwald, R. (1992). Inwald Personality Inventory technical manual (revised). Hilson Research.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agree-
ment among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2013). Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of per-
sonality traits. In T. A. Widiger & P. T. Costa, Jr. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(pp. 15–27). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13939-002
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05
Menton, W. H., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Evidence for the comparability of local and remote administrations
of the MMPI-2-RF in police candidate evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pas0001088
Roberts, M. D., Roberts, R., & Johnson, M. (2018). CPI-434 police and public safety selection report: Technical manual
(2nd ed.). JRA.
Roberts, R. M., Tarescavage, A. M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Roberts, M. D. (2019). Predicting postprobationary job perfor-
mance of police officers using CPI and MMPI-2-RF test data obtained during preemployment psychological screening.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1423990
Sellbom, M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Incremental validity of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
in the preemployment assessment of police officer candidates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(7), 1050–1069. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033630
22 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and mis-
conduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 985–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301224
Spilberg, S. W., & Corey, D. M. (2022). Peace officer psychological screening manual. California Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST). https://post.ca.gov/peace-officer-psychological-screening-manual (Original
work published 2014)
Talerico, G. M., McCallum, J. J., Whitman, M. R., Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2023). Comparing
the validity of MMPI-3 scores in prehire psychological screenings of male and female police officer candidates. Journal
of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2191278
Tarescavage, A. M., Brewster, J., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Use of prehire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2—Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) police candidate scores to predict supervisor ratings of posthire perfor-
mance. Assessment, 22(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114548445
Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured
Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behavior. Assessment, 22(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1073191114534885
Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., Gupton, H. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Criterion validity and practical utility of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in assessments of police officer candi-
dates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(4), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.995800
Tarescavage, A. M., Fischler, G. L., Cappo, B. M., Hill, D. O., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of police officer problem behavior
and collateral self-report test scores. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000041
Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2—Restructured form (MMPI-2-RF):
Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 2008)
Tellegen, A., Sellbom, M., Kamp, J., & Handel, R. W. (2023). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ): Manual
for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5. (1978). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/
subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1607
Whitman, M. R., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2023a). Associations between MMPI-3 and psychosocial history find-
ings obtained in preemployment evaluations of public safety candidates. Assessment, 30(7), 2128–2145. https://doi.
org/10.1177/10731911221138931
Whitman, M. R., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2023b). Does prior law enforcement experience affect scores on preem-
ployment psychological testing? An investigation using the MMPI-3. Psychological Services, 20, 889–898. https://doi.
org/10.1037/ser0000679
Whitman, M. R., Elias, L. S., Cappo, B. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021). Criterion validity of MMPI-3 scores in preemploy-
ment evaluations of public safety candidates. Psychological Assessment, 33(12), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pas0001042
Wongpakaran, N., Wongpakaran, T., Wedding, D., & Gwet, K. L. (2013). A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1
when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: A study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 13, Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-61

Megan R. Whitman is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology at Kent State University. Under the mentorship of Yossef
Ben-Porath, her research interests include psychometrics and applications of the MMPI-3 in various assessment contexts,
including forensic and pre-employment evaluations.

Kaci Holmes is a PhD student at Kent State University and a member of the MMPI Research Group. Her research interests
are generally assessment-focused and include police and public safety psychology, forensic psychology, and sports
psychology.

Dr. Laura Sue Elias practices in the field of psychology in a large midwestern multispecialty group practice. She specializes
in the treatment and assessment of substance use disorders, remains involved in research, provides expert testimony in court
cases involving substance use, and teaches psychology at the undergraduate and graduate level.

Dr. Bruce M. Cappo practices clinical and forensic psychology in a large midwestern multispecialty group practice. He
specializes in assessment and also remains involved in research.

Yossef S. Ben-Porath is a Professor of Psychological Sciences at Kent State University. He received his doctoral training at
the University of Minnesota and has been involved extensively in MMPI research for the past 38 years. Dr. Ben-Porath is a
board-certified psychologist (American Board of Professional Psychology-Clinical) whose clinical practice involves supervi-
sion of assessments at Kent State’s Psychological Clinic, consultation to agencies that screen candidates for public safety
positions, and provision of consultation and expert witness services in forensic cases.

View publication stats