Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hjpa20

Comparing the Validity of MMPI-3 Scores in Prehire

Psychological Screenings of Male and Female
Police Officer Candidates

Gina M. Talerico, Jasmine J. McCallum, Megan R. Whitman, Anthony M.

Tarescavage, David M. Corey & Yossef S. Ben-Porath

To cite this article: Gina M. Talerico, Jasmine J. McCallum, Megan R. Whitman, Anthony M.
Tarescavage, David M. Corey & Yossef S. Ben-Porath (2024) Comparing the Validity of MMPI-3
Scores in Prehire Psychological Screenings of Male and Female Police Officer Candidates,
Journal of Personality Assessment, 106:1, 27-36, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2023.2191278

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2191278

Published online: 07 Apr 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 351

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
Journal of Personality Assessment
2024, VOL. 106, NO. 1, 27–36
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2191278

Comparing the Validity of MMPI-3 Scores in Prehire Psychological Screenings

of Male and Female Police Officer Candidates
Gina M. Talerico1, Jasmine J. McCallum1, Megan R. Whitman2 , Anthony M. Tarescavage1,3 ,
David M. Corey4 and Yossef S. Ben-Porath2
1
Department of Psychology, John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio; 2Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University,
Kent, Ohio; 3Cleveland Psychological Testing, Middleburg Heights, Ohio; 4Corey & Stewart, Portland, Oregon

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Psychological testing is an important component of the screening process for public safety officers. Received 25 September 2020
The use of standardized measures is intended to increase the objectivity of preemployment Revised 13 February 2023
evaluations, highlighting the importance of examining tests used in these assessments for evidence Accepted 2 March 2023
of differential validity. Differential validity is indicated when a screening measure is unequally
associated with, or systematically over- or under-predicts, a criterion across demographic groups.
In the current study, we examined for differential validity in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) scores in a sample of 527 police officer candidates (455 males, 72 females).
We first calculated correlations between MMPI-3 scores and job-relevant historical variables. Next,
for variable pairings that yielded at least a small effect size, regression models were estimated in
a multi-group framework comparing associations between MMPI-3 scores and the historical variables
across men and women. The analyses yielded statistical evidence of negligible differential validity
across gender in police officer screenings. Implications of these findings and limitations of this
study are discussed.

Although most police officers perform their duties in a safe,
ethical, and competent manner, police officer misconduct
is an important concern (Chaney & Robertson, 2013). Past
research has found that incidences of police misconduct can
affect citizen safety and negatively impact public perception
of police officers (Bradford et al., 2009; Carr et al., 2007;
Mastrofski et al., 2002; Mazerolle et al., 2012; Nagin & Telep,
2017). These concerns have led to the development of pol-
icies aimed at decreasing police misconduct (Nunes, 2015).
For example, in an effort to improve the screening process
of police officers, psychological evaluations and testing have
become an integral part of the preemployment selection
process.
In a recent review, Corey et al. (2022) reported that 37
states mandate, or conditionally mandate, psychological
screening of police officer candidates, and the most recent
national Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010) review of local
law enforcement selection practices indicated that between
72% to 98% of police departments required a psychological
evaluation when screening candidates. Cochrane et al. (2003)
conducted a national survey of municipal police departments
and found that the majority used a multimethod approach
in their hiring process. Many departments required medical
examinations, drug testing, background checks, and poly-
graph testing. At the state level, Corey et al. (2022) reported
that 17 of the 37 states requiring psychological evaluations
specify that written psychological testing should be utilized,
and Cochrane et al. (2003) reported that 91% of surveyed
zmunicipal police departments required preemployment psy-
chological screening with testing.
In 2014, the Police Psychological Services Section (PPSS)
of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
released preemployment psychological evaluation guidelines
aimed at improving these assessments (IACP, 2014/2020).
The IACP notes that the testing utilized in these evaluations
should have documented reliability and validity in pre-
employment assessments of public safety candidates. The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured
Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is
an example of a test that has well-documented psychometrics
for use in police officer screenings (Ben-Porath et al., 2017;
Corey & Ben-Porath, 2018; Menton et al., 2022; Roberts
et al., 2019; Tarescavage, Brewster, et al., 2015; Tarescavage,
Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015a, 2015b; Tarescavage, Corey,
Gupton, et al., 2015; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al., 2015).
However, most of these studies included only male partic-
ipants in validation analyses.
The MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a, 2020b), a
revision of the MMPI-2-RF that features an updated, rep-
resentative normative sample and new and revised scales,
was released in 2020, and subsequent peer-reviewed research
on this version of the test has compared validity coefficients
of test scores across male and female police candidates
(Whitman et al., 2021, 2022b). First, Whitman et al. (2021)
compared the criterion validity of MMPI-3 scores in pre-
employment evaluations across male and female public safety

CONTACT Anthony M. Tarescavage atarescavage@jcu.edu Cleveland Psychological Testing, 16600 Sprague Road, #190, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130,
USA.
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
28 TALERICO ET AL.
candidates. These authors compared validity coefficients
using Cohen’s q, which is the difference between two Fisher’s
z corrected correlations. The gender differences in validity
coefficients were minimal for preemployment public safety
candidates, with few statistically significant differences, most
of which were small in magnitude. In another study that
also utilized Cohen’s q, Whitman et al. (2022b) compared
the validity of convergent and discriminant validity of
MMPI-3 scores across male and female police candidates.
That study used personal history data (i.e., biodata scales)
that were collected during the preemployment evaluation as
criterion measures. Similar to Whitman et al. (2021), these
authors found minimal gender differences, and all statisti-
cally significant effect sizes were small.
It is important for psychologists to use in their evalua-
tions tests and other sources of evidence that have been
shown to be reliable and valid in the populations to which
an examinee belongs (American Educational Research
Association & American Psychological Association &
National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014;
American Psychological Association Task Force on
Psychological Assessment & Evaluation Guidelines, 2020).
This is particularly true in preemployment psychological
evaluations, as the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibits dif-
ferential interpretation of test results and use of different
cutoff scores for generating interpretive statements on the
basis of sex and other characteristics. Therefore, psycholo-
gists are particularly motivated to select tests that have been
demonstrated to be equally reliable and valid across demo-
graphic groups, allowing them to accurately interpret results
regardless of a candidate’s demographic background.
Practitioners can inform test selection by knowing
whether commonly used tests evidence bias. Test bias occurs
when there is evidence of differential validity of test scores
across demographic groups (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). The
first possible manifestation of differential validity is intercept
bias, which is a systematic over-prediction or under-prediction
of a criterion across demographic groups. The second man-
ifestation of differential validity is slope bias, which rep-
resents a difference in the strength of association between
scale scores and criteria across demographic groups. To
illustrate the implications of differential validity in this set-
ting, consider the following possibility. Women are under-
represented in law enforcement with about 14% of full-time
sworn law enforcement officers in local departments being
female (Goodison, 2022). A measure evidencing intercept
bias could contribute to this hiring discrepancy by, for exam-
ple, over-predicting job-relevant problems for female can-
didates. A measure evidencing slope bias could contribute
to the hiring discrepancy by yielding less valid (and there-
fore more error prone) test interpretations for women.
Whereas self-selection into police work is likely the pri-
mary factor influencing unequal employment rates across
gender, it is important to rule out alternative explanations
to the underrepresentation of women in law enforcement,
including test bias in preemployment psychological evalua-
tions. Moreover, evaluating for test bias can also inform
psychologists’ test use decisions for the most defensible
selection practices under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Two
previous MMPI-3 studies (Whitman et al., 2021, 2022b)
indicated that these test scores are not biased across male
and female police candidates; however, those investigations
compared validity coefficients using Cohen’s q, which does
not account for potential intercept bias. The present study
sought to expand on Whitman et al. (2021, 2022b) by eval-
uating intercept and slope bias more directly, using a
multi-group structural equation modeling approach.
Current study
The purpose of the current study was to extend previous
research by Whitman et al. (2021, 2022b), which compared
the validity of MMPI-3 scores across male and female public
safety candidates using Cohen’s q effect sizes. Specifically,
we utilized a more direct analytic approach by evaluating
MMPI-3 scores for potential slope and intercept bias in a
structural equation modeling framework. We first correlated
MMPI-3 substantive scale scores with conceptually relevant
composites derived from a preemployment history question-
naire. In cases where these associations yielded at least small
effect sizes (r ≥ |.10|; Cohen, 1988), we used a multi-group
structural equation modeling approach in which we regressed
history questionnaire variables on MMPI-3 scores. For each
MMPI-3 substantive scale and criterion variable pairing, we
compared the fit of freely estimated models for men and
women against models that were constrained to have slopes
and intercepts equal across men and women. Comparisons
that yielded statistically significant decrements in fit indi-
cated the possible presence of slope and/or intercept bias.
As described next in the Method section, we quantified the
magnitude of the differences across the models using omega
prime. Based on the results of past MMPI-2-RF investiga-
tions of slope and intercept bias in a bariatric surgery setting
(Marek et al., 2015) and forensic inpatient setting (Whitman
et al., 2019), as well as comparisons of validity coefficients
across male and female public safety candidates (Whitman
et al., 2022a, 2022b), we hypothesized that the current study
would not show evidence of practically meaningful
cross-gender differential validity in the MMPI-3 scores of
police candidates.
Method
Participants
The current study used a sample of 527 prehire police officer
candidates (455 males, 72 females) from multiple police
agencies in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. All
candidates produced MMPI-3 protocols that were valid
according to MMPI-3 interpretive guidelines (Cannot Say
[CNS] < 15, Combined Response Inconsistency [CRIN],
Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN], and True Response
Inconsistency [TRIN] < 80 T, and Infrequent Responses [F]
and Infrequent Psychopathology Responses [Fp] < 100 T;
Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a). The age of the sample mem-
bers was comprised of 20 years or less (0.8%), 21-22 years
(12%), 23-24 years (14%), 25-26 years (15%), 27-28 years
(10.2%), to 29 years or more (48%). The sample’s level of
 VALIDITY OF MMPI-3 SCORES IN MALE AND FEMALE POLICE OFFICER CANDIDATES
education included G.E.D. (2.1%), high school graduate
(11%), 1-2 years of college (30.6%), 3-4 years of college with
no bachelor’s degree (16.9%), graduation from a four-year
college with a bachelor’s degree (32.8%), to a postgraduate
degree (6.6%). The sample was composed of candidates who
identified as white/Caucasian (87.1%), Hispanic/Latino
American (8%), Asian/Pacific Island (5.1%), Native American
(2.7%), and Black/African American (2.3%). Additionally, a
majority of the sample reported their marital status as legally
married (51.8%) or single (41.9%). This study was approved
by the [masked] institutional review board (protocol
#[masked]). This sample overlaps with the sample used by
Whitman et al. (2022a) and Whitman et al. (2022b). The
sample was drawn from the same population as the MMPI-3
police officer candidate comparison group presented in the
MMPI-3 Technical Manual (Ben-Porath & Telleegn, 2020b).
However, there is no direct comparison of slopes and inter-
cepts in the test manual or Whitman et al. (2022a, 2022b),
and the present study takes a distinct analytic approach
relative to Whitman et al. (2022b), who compared magni-
tudes of associations between MMPI-3 scores and biodata
scales across male and female police candidates.
Measures
Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-3
The MMPI-3 was described in detail earlier. Raw MMPI-3
scores were derived from an expanded version of the
MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF-EX, which was used to develop
the MMPI-3. Hall et al. (2022) demonstrated the compara-
bility of MMPI-3 scores derived from the MMPI-2-RF-EX
and MMPI-3 booklets. The MMPI-3 Technical Manual
reports extensive reliability and validity of evidence of test
scores across a wide range of settings, including preemploy-
ment evaluations of police candidates (Ben-Porath &
Tellegen, 2020b). Means, standard deviations (SD), Cronbach’s
alpha internal consistency estimates, and standard errors of
measurement (SEM) for MMPI-3 scale scores are presented
Table 1.
Psychological history questionnaire (PsyQ)
The study criteria are rationally derived mean scores of
problems endorsed on a standardized personal history ques-
tionnaire called the Psychological History Questionnaire
(Johnson et al., 2011). The PsyQ is a psychological and
behavioral background questionnaire designed for use with
law enforcement and other public safety applicants. History
questionnaires are an important component in preemploy-
ment assessments of police officers (IACP, 2014/2020), and
admission of some historical problems can disqualify appli-
cants. The questionnaire contains 340 questions covering
areas in the following 14 topics: education, employment,
military experience, law enforcement experience, driving
record, financial history, legal history, substance use, general
information, developmental history, adult relationships,
parental responsibilities, psychological and evaluation history,
and job relevant sexual history. From the full questionnaire,
we rationally derived seven composite variables to serve as
29
our criteria (see Table 2 for descriptions of item content).
As reported in Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha for these compos-
ites ranged from .50 (History of Internalizing [two items])
to .76 (History of Legal Problems [19 items]), which are
acceptable given the restriction of range expected in police
candidates being evaluated for psychological suitability after
a conditional offer of employment had been tendered; low
SEM values support this conclusion. The items in the com-
posites were transformed to z scores before taking the aver-
age of the items. Therefore, the mean for all composites is 0.
Analysis plan
We first calculated means, SD, Cronbach’s alpha internal
consistency estimates, and SEM for MMPI-3 and PsyQ com-
posite scores. Given the expected range restriction in police
candidate samples, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency
estimates are likely underestimates of the reliability of test
scores (Schmidt et al., 2006). Therefore, we also calculated
SEM, which account for both alpha coefficients and sample
variability. When scales with low alpha coefficients also have
low SEM, we can infer that the low internal consistency
estimates are reflective of range restriction rather than scale
heterogeneity or measurement imprecision (Cortina, 1993).
Next, we calculated correlations between MMPI-3 scores
and composites. In the 70 analyses where associations
between MMPI-3 scores and the PsyQ composites yielded
at least a small effect size (r ≥│.10│), we conducted non-
linear regressions models that used MMPI-3 scores to pre-
dict PsyQ composite scores. Using Mplus 7.3 (Muthén &
Muthén, 2017), these composites were parameterized using
maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLM)
and a mean-adjusted chi-squared test statistic that is robust
to non-normality. To examine for slope bias, we constrained
the slopes to be equal across gender (male, female), then
compared the fit of these models with freely estimated mod-
els. Similarly, to examine intercept bias, we constrained the
intercepts to be equal across gender, then compared
intercept-constrained models with freely estimated models.
Both intercepts and slopes were constrained and compared
with slope-constrained models when slope bias was statis-
tically significant or evidenced by at least a small effect size.
This is because slope bias inherently produces differences
in intercepts.
We assessed decrement in statistical fit across the con-
strained and freely estimated models using Satorra-Bentler
adjusted chi-square difference tests (Satorra & Bentler, 1994,
2010). Any Satorra-Bentler chi-squares associated with p >
.05 indicated nonsignificant decrement in fit when intercepts
and/or slopes were constrained to be equal. Put differently,
evidence of statistically significant slope and/or intercept
bias was indicated by significant Satorra-Bentler chi-square
values. We used the Satorra-Bentler chi-square values
(Satorra & Bentler, 1994, 2010) to calculate omega (ω′)
prime, which was used to quantify effect sizes (.10 small,
.30 medium, .50 large; Cohen, 1988). The Satorra-Bentler
adjusted chi-square difference test is robust to uneven sam-
ple sizes (Brace & Savalei, 2017); additionally, due to unequal
30 TALERICO ET AL.

Table 1. MMPI-3 descriptive statistics.

Overall (n = 527) Men (n = 455) Women (n = 72)
Scale M SD α SEM M SD M SD
Combined Response Inconsistency CRIN 36.6 4.0 .16 3.7 36.5 4.0 37.1 4.5
Variable Response Inconsistency VRIN 38.0 4.0 .28 3.4 37.9 4.0 38.5 4.3
True Response Inconsistency TRIN 52.5F 4.1 .07 .7 52.6F 3.9 52.1F 5.1
Infrequent Responses F 41.5 1.3 .09 1.2 41.5 1.3 41.6 1.6
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses Fp 42.1 3.4 .17 3.1 42.1 3.4 42.4 3.5
Infrequent Somatic Responses Fs 43.1 2.4 .06 2.3 43.2 2.5 42.7 1.7
Symptom Validity Scale FBS 44.8 5.3 .42 4.1 44.7 5.4 45.3 4.5
Response Bias Scale RBS 44.0 5.5 .28 4.6 44.1 5.4 43.2 5.9
Uncommon Virtues L 54.7 11.0 .71 5.9 55.2 11.1 51.8 10.0
Adjustment Validity K 66.9 6.7 .68 3.8 67.0 6.8 66.8 5.8
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction EID 36.3 4.1 .18 3.7 36.2 4.1 37.0 4.1
Thought Dysfunction THD 40.4 4.7 .40 3.6 40.4 4.7 40.5 4.6
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction BXD 41.6 5.5 .60 3.5 41.7 5.5 41.0 5.5
Demoralization RCd 37.5 3.0 .45 2.3 37.5 3.0 37.6 3.2
Somatic Complaints RC1 39.1 4.3 .37 3.4 39.0 4.2 39.8 5.1
Low Positive Emotions RC2 42.8 6.1 .50 4.3 42.8 6.1 43.1 5.7
Antisocial Behavior RC4 42.8 6.1 .53 4.2 42.9 6.2 42.8 5.4
Ideas of Persecution RC6 42.1 4.3 .42 3.3 42.1 4.3 42.0 4.2
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions RC7 37.4 4.0 .52 2.8 37.3 4.0 37.9 3.9
Aberrant Experiences RC8 40.4 4.8 .39 3.8 40.5 4.8 40.1 4.6
Hypomanic Activation RC9 42.1 6.4 .68 3.6 42.2 6.4 41.4 6.4
Malaise MLS 38.4 4.7 .24 4.1 38.5 4.7 37.6 4.6
Neurological Complaints NUC 42.0 5.4 .27 4.6 42.0 5.4 42.1 5.3
Eating Concerns EAT 43.9 2.3 .19 2.1 43.9 2.1 44.2 3.3
Cognitive Complaints COG 39.6 3.1 .42 2.3 39.6 3.0 39.6 3.5
Suicidal/Death Ideation SUI 44.4 1.5 .00 1.5 44.4 1.4 44.5 1.6
Helplessness/Hopelessness HLP 41.0 3.0 .01 3.0 41.0 3.1 40.9 2.8
Self-Doubt SFD 41.2 2.9 .35 2.3 41.1 2.8 41.5 3.5
Inefficacy NFC 39.2 3.8 .31 3.2 39.0 3.6 40.4 4.6
Stress STR 41.0 4.7 .15 4.3 40.8 4.6 42.3 5.0
Worry WRY 39.0 3.6 .62 2.2 39.0 3.5 38.9 4.0
Compulsivity CMP 45.5 7.2 .66 4.2 45.7 7.4 43.9 6.3
Anxiety-Related Experiences AXR 39.1 3.5 .50 2.5 38.9 3.4 40.3 4.2
Anger Proneness ANP 38.9 3.4 .31 2.8 38.9 3.3 39.3 3.9
Behavior-Restricting Fears BRF 43.5 3.0 .05 2.9 43.5 3.0 43.6 3.0
Family Problems FML 40.1 5.0 .40 3.9 39.8 4.9 41.7 5.4
Juvenile Conduct Problems JCP 44.3 6.7 .52 4.7 44.6 6.8 42.7 5.8
Substance Abuse SUB 43.0 5.0 .25 4.3 42.9 4.9 43.4 5.3
Impulsivity IMP 41.1 5.1 .42 3.9 41.0 5.1 41.1 5.1
Activation ACT 44.1 7.5 .62 4.6 44.1 7.4 44.0 7.7
Aggression AGG 42.5 5.1 .20 4.6 42.6 5.1 42.0 4.8
Cynicism CYN 38.7 6.8 .80 3.0 38.9 7.0 37.2 5.7
Self-Importance SFI 49.7 8.1 .67 4.7 49.8 8.2 49.0 7.4
Dominance DOM 49.2 7.8 .57 5.1 49.5 7.8 47.8 7.8
Disaffiliativeness DSF 41.5 4.0 .39 3.1 41.5 3.9 41.7 4.2
Social Avoidance SAV 45.6 6.9 .67 4.0 45.6 6.9 45.7 6.5
Shyness SHY 41.2 5.6 .63 3.4 41.1 5.4 42.1 6.5
Aggressiveness AGGR 46.8 5.6 .57 3.7 47.0 5.5 45.6 6.1
Psychoticism PSYC 41.1 4.8 .40 3.8 41.0 4.8 41.3 5.0
Disconstraint DISC 43.4 5.4 .56 3.6 43.5 5.4 42.3 5.5
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism NEGE 38.5 3.9 .54 2.7 38.3 3.8 39.5 4.6
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality INTR 46.2 6.3 .66 3.7 46.2 6.4 46.0 5.9
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha; SEM = standard error of measurement.

sample sizes, the focus of our analysis was on effect sizes
rather than statistical significance.
Results
Table 1 includes descriptive statistics and reliability estimates
for MMPI-3 scores. Most MMPI-3 mean scores were low
relative to the test normative sample which has a mean of
50 T (average mean score = 42.5 T). MMPI-3 scores also
had less variability in the present sample relative to the
normative sample, which has a SD of 10 T (average SD =
4.9 T). Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency estimates for
MMPI-3 scores were low (mean α = .4); however, SEM
values, which account for alpha values and variability, were
also low (mean SEM = 3.5), indicating that the relatively
low alpha values were due to range restriction rather than
measurement imprecision.
Correlations between the MMPI-3 substantive scales and
the study criteria are provided in Table 3. A total of 70
associations yielded a small effect size or greater (r ≥ .10).
We then conducted examinations of slope and intercept bias
for these 70 associations, yielding 140 analyses (70 for slope
bias and 70 for intercept bias). These results are presented
in Table 4. Overall, 24 of these analyses yielded statistically
significant findings indicating possible psychometric bias
(see Table 5 for a summary). However, 23 of the 24 effect
sizes for the statistically significant results were negligible.
The only one to reach a small effect size was the Eating

Table 2. Description of composite problem variables.
Overall (n = 527) Men (n = 455)
Variable α SEM M SD
History of Work Problems .62 .25 .00
History of Financial Problems .58 .34 .00
History of Legal Problems .76 .16 –.01
Childhood Abuse/Neglect .62 .46 –.04
Childhood Learning Problems .58 .40 –.03
History of Internalizing Problems .50 .56 –.03
History of Alcohol Problems .66 .29 .00
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; SEM = standard error of measurement.
Concerns (EAT) scale (ω’ = .21) predicting internalizing
problems. EAT scores were more strongly associated with
internalizing problems among men than women.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to examine MMPI-3
scores for differential validity across gender (men and
women) in prehire psychological screenings of police offi-
cers. We found only one instance of at least small-magnitude
statistically significant differential predictive validity for the
MMPI-3 scales, and in this case, it demonstrated stronger
validity for men than for women. These results indicate
that MMPI-3 scores are not differentially valid across men
and women. Consequently, our findings support MMPI-3
use in preemployment evaluations, for which differential
interpretations of test scores on the basis of gender are
prohibited by law. Aspects of these findings warrant further
discussion.
The results of the current study converge with past
research that has generally demonstrated that the MMPI
instruments manifest negligible evidence of differential valid-
ity. For example, using a very similar design and a sample
of forensic psychiatric inpatients, Whitman et al. (2019)
found that only 5.3% of their analyses yielded statistically
significant evidence of differential predictive validity of
MMPI-2-RF scores across gender and ethnic groups in a
forensic psychiatric inpatient setting. There too, the largest
differences were of a small magnitude. Marek et al. (2015)
found similar results with the MMPI-2-RF in a sample of
bariatric surgery candidates. Moreover, these authors
reported that male and female bariatric surgery patients
produced similar MMPI-2-RF scores, which was also true
in the present sample. The present results also converge
with previous research comparing MMPI-3 validity coeffi-
cients in preemployment evaluations of male and female
public safety candidates, albeit using a different quantitative
methodology (Whitman et al., 2021, 2022b). Together, these
three studies yield strong support for the assertion that
MMPI-3 scores are not differentially biased across gender
in preemployment settings, which is similar to findings with
VALIDITY OF MMPI-3 SCORES IN MALE AND FEMALE POLICE OFFICER CANDIDATES 31
Women (n = 72)
Number of
M SD Items PsyQ Items
–.09 –.02 .40 15 Frequency of Tardiness; Fired/resignation; Number
of Work Complaints or Conflicts; Taking of
company merchandise
–.15 .01 .60 7 Ability to Pay Bills; Problems related to Bankruptcy,
Bill Consolidation, Garnishments; Gambling
–.21 –.04 .26 19 Number of Arrests or Convictions; Appearances
before Court; Instances of Larceny; Sexual
Crimes; DUI
–.34 .29 1.12 4 History of Being Abused as a Child (physical,
verbal, emotional, and/or sexual)
–.18 .02 .69 4 Dyslexia, ADHD, Any medication taken
–.18 .18 1.18 2 Treatment for Anxiety; Treatment for Depression
–.03 –.02 .42 10 Blackouts; Marital or Family Difficulties; Fights; Work
Problems; Drinking and Driving
bariatric surgery candidate (Marek et al., 2015) and forensic
psychiatric inpatient (Whitman et al., 2019) samples.
Our findings also build on the substantial research lit-
erature on use of the MMPI instruments in prehire screen-
ings (Ben-Porath et al., 2017; Corey & Ben-Porath, 2018;
Roberts et al., 2019; Tarescavage, Brewster, et al., 2015;
Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015a, 2015b; Tarescavage,
Corey, et al., 2015; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al., 2015.
Specifically, as shown in Table 3, the MMPI-3 scales were
associated in expected ways with the PsyQ composites (most
notably, the externalizing scales, which is consistent with
previous patterns of results [Whitman et al., 2022b]).
Additionally, MMPI-3 mean scores and SD were lower in
this sample relative to the normative sample, which is con-
sistent with findings from other public safety samples for
various tests (e.g., Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Tarescavage,
Fischler et al., 2015; Whitman et al., 2021, 2022a).
Importantly, the present findings uniquely support the
use of the MMPI-3 in preemployment evaluations of police
candidates with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
which prohibits differential interpretation of test scores
across gender, including use of different cutoff scores for
generating interpretive statements. As a consequence, psy-
chologists need to select tests to use in preemployment
evaluations that have been demonstrated to be equally valid
across gender in the relevant contexts and population. The
present results indicate that MMPI-3 scores are not differ-
entially valid in preemployment evaluations of police can-
didates. No research has directly supported this conclusion
through evaluation for slope and intercept bias for any other
commonly used test in preemployment evaluations, such as
the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007)
and California Psychological Inventory-434 (CPI-434; Gough
& Bradley, 2002).
The limitations of this study point to future directions
in research. One limitation in the current study is an inad-
equate sample size to test for differential validity across
other demographic characteristics (e.g., race and age). Future
research in this area is of interest, although it is important
to note that past MMPI-2-RF research has yielded results
similar to the current study for race/ethnicity (Whitman
32 TALERICO ET AL.

Table 3. MMPI-3 substantive scales zero-order associations with PsyQ problem variables.
Victim of Child Childhood
Scale Work Financial Legal Abuse Learning Internalizing Alcohol
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction EID .11** .00 .10* .06 .02 .11** .13**
Thought Dysfunction THD .00 .06 .06 .04 .06 –.07 –.02
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction BXD .29** .16** .38** .14** .06 .04 .26**
Demoralization RCd .05 –.02 .05 .03 –.01 .09* .07
Somatic Complaints RC1 .08 .02 .10* .09* .03 .04 .02
Low Positive Emotions RC2 .05 –.04 .03 .00 –.01 .11* .01
Antisocial Behavior RC4 .27** .20** .46** .22** .02 .08 .31**
Ideas of Persecution RC6 .06 .02 .03 –.03 –.01 –.06 .05
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions RC7 .11** –.03 .01 .03 –.04 .08 .06
Aberrant Experiences RC8 .07 .05 .08 .07 .06 –.05 –.01
Hypomanic Activation RC9 .14** .01 .08 .07 .09* –.03 .14**
Malaise MLS .15** .01 .16** .02 .01 .08 .05
Neurological Complaints NUC .04 .01 .10* .03 .03 –.03 .00
Eating Concerns EAT .03 –.04 .06 .03 .22** .11* .14**
Cognitive Complaints COG .09* .11* .03 .07 .12** .04 .05
Suicidal/Death Ideation SUI .11* .00 .02 –.03 –.03 .04 .03
Helplessness/Hopelessness HLP –.03 –.03 –.07 –.03 .04 .03 .01
Self-Doubt SFD .02 –.01 .04 .02 .00 .10* .02
Inefficacy NFC .09* .02 .05 .04 .05 .06 .01
Stress STR .11** .02 .09* .10* .04 .09* .15**
Worry WRY .14** .03 .11** .12** .00 .13** .20**
Compulsivity CMP .07 –.04 .00 .03 –.02 .02 .06
Anxiety-Related Experiences AXR .11* .06 .03 .04 .01 .09* .14**
Anger Proneness ANP .09* .02 .11* .09* –.02 –.02 .11**
Behavior-Restricting Fears BRF .03 –.04 –.01 –.05 –.03 .07 .10*
Family Problems FML .10* .11** .09* .37** .05 .01 .03
Juvenile Conduct Problems JCP .21** .14** .38** .13** .03 .05 .13**
Substance Abuse SUB .20** .12** .27** .05 –.01 .07 .43**
Impulsivity IMP .16** .04 .13** .08 .09* –.04 .15**
Activation ACT .07 –.01 .02 .06 .05 –.01 .06
Aggression AGG .15** .08 .09* .03 –.06 –.05 .04
Cynicism CYN .12** –.03 –.04 .02 .02 –.04 .05
Self-Importance SFI –.06 .04 –.07 –.07 .04 –.14** –.04
Dominance DOM .03 .05 .02 .02 –.08 –.04 .02
Disaffiliativeness DSF .08 –.04 –.04 .04 –.01 .04 –.03
Social Avoidance SAV –.02 –.15** –.01 –.02 –.03 .04 –.08
Shyness SHY .05 –.02 .00 .07 .03 .03 .05
Aggressiveness AGGR .07 .07 .03 .05 –.07 –.04 .04
Psychoticism PSYC .01 .05 .04 .05 .05 –.06 –.03
Disconstraint DISC .28** .18** .46** .16** .07 .05 .37**
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism NEGE .11* –.01 .02 .10* –.04 .08 .12**
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality INTR –.01 –.15** –.01 –.02 .00 .05 –.07
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. Bolded r ≥ │.10│.

et al., 2019). Second, the present Pacific Northwest sample
consisted predominately of white participants (87.1%), which
raises questions about the generalizability of these findings
to other police candidate samples. Indeed, the subsample of
white participants in the present study is disproportionately
high even relative to other police and sheriff departments;
for example, Goodison (2022) conducted a survey of U.S.
local police department personnel and reported that in 2020,
69% of full-time sworn officers identified as non-Hispanic
white. Future research with more diversity is needed. Third,
the present sample included only individuals who identified
as male or female, which is a dichotomization of a fluid
and dimensional construct (Bass et al., 2018). Oversampling
for candidates who identify as nonbinary or another gender
identity, as well as using multiple methodologies to evaluate
for differential validity, may help improve the external valid-
ity of the present conclusions.
Fourth, this study utilized self-reported background infor-
mation as criteria. Although this is an informative source
of information in preemployment evaluations, future research
on differential predictive validity using prospective designs
and post-hire performance data is needed. For example,
validation studies might use supervisor ratings of post-hire
probationary period performance (Tarescavage, Fischler,
et al., 2015), field performance ratings (Tarescavage, Corey
& Ben-Porath, 2015a, 2015b), internal affairs or civilian
review authority complaints (Sellbom et al., 2007), or invol-
untary or adverse departure (Tarescavage, Brewster, et al.,
2015) as criteria. Fifth, PsyQ composites were relatively
lacking in the area of thought dysfunction, and the use of
criteria with greater construct coverage is needed to better
examine for differential validity in thought dysfunction
scores, which have been demonstrated to be predictive of
poor post-hire performance of police officers (Sellbom et al.,
2007; Tarescavage, Fischler, et al., 2015). Lastly, future
research should evaluate other components of the selection
process for differential validity, including background inves-
tigation results and interviews.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study indicates
that the MMPI-3 does not evidence meaningful differential
Table 4. Differential validity analyses.
Slope Intercept
Scale Criterion χ2 p Ω' M W χ2 p Ω' M W
EID Work Problems .00 .947 .00 – – .32 .571 .01 – –
BXD Work Problems 1.01 .316 .02 – – 1.29 .256 .02 – –
RC4 Work Problems .30 .586 .01 – – .63 .427 .01 – –
RC7 Work Problems .33 .563 .01 – – .68 .409 .01 – –
RC9 Work Problems .65 .420 .01 – – .17 .682 .01 – –
MLS Work Problems 2.25 .134 .03 – – .38 .537 .01 – –
SUI Work Problems 1.83 .177 .02 – – .43 .510 .01 – –
STR Work Problems .53 .465 .01 – – .00 .970 .00 – –
WRY Work Problems 4.52 .034 .04 .18** .02 4.43 .109 .04 – –
AXR Work Problems .02 .896 .00 – – .53 .465 .01 – –
FML Work Problems .21 .649 .01 – – .08 .773 .00 – –
JCP Work Problems 9.36 .002 .05 .18** .44** 7.87 .020 .05 .13* .31*
SUB Work Problems 1.91 .168 .02 – – .09 .760 .01 – –
IMP Work Problems 3.04 .081 .03 – – .22 .640 .01 – –
AGG Work Problems 10.03 .002 .05 .10* .48** 10.53 .005 .05 .05 .31*
CYN Work Problems 1.06 .304 .02 – – .88 .349 .02 – –
DISC Work Problems .09 .759 .01 – – .08 .779 .00 – –
NEGE Work Problems .29 .590 .01 – – .18 .669 .01 – –
BXD Financial Problems .31 .581 .01 – – .09 .761 .01 – –
RC4 Financial Problems .24 .625 .01 – – .08 .778 .00 – –
COG Financial Problems 1.08 .298 .02 – – .15 .696 .01 – –
FML Financial Problems 0.26 .608 .01 – – .30 .582 .01 – –
JCP Financial Problems 3.45 .063 .03 – – .11 .745 .01 – –
SUB Financial Problems .01 .937 .00 – – .02 .898 .00 – –
SAV Financial Problems .10 .748 .01 – – .01 .943 .00 – –
DISC Financial Problems .02 .893 .00 – – .05 .827 .00 – –
INTR Financial Problems .35 .555 .01 – – .10 .747 .01 – –
EID Legal Problems 3.94 .047 .03 .18 -.08 4.67 .097 .04 – –
BXD Legal Problems .49 .484 .01 – – .19 .662 .01 – –
RC1 Legal Problems 2.65 .104 .03 – – .03 .867 .00 – –
RC4 Legal Problems .60 .438 .01 – – .14 .708 .01 – –
MLS Legal Problems 1.49 .223 .02 – – .08 .783 .00 – –
NUC Legal Problems .96 .328 .02 – – .04 .851 .00 – –
WRY Legal Problems 8.61 .003 .05 .16* -.11* 9.59 .008 .05 -.09 -.12
ANP Legal Problems .04 .848 .00 – – 1.17 .281 .02 – –
JCP Legal Problems .37 .545 .01 – – .31 .579 .01 – –
SUB Legal Problems .03 .874 .00 – – 1.81 .179 .02 – –
IMP Legal Problems .05 .816 .00 – – .46 .496 .01 – –
DISC Legal Problems .64 .423 .01 – – .73 .393 .01 – –
BXD Victim of Child Abuse .68 .410 .01 – – 5.00 .025 .04 .34** .23
RC4 Victim of Child Abuse .80 .370 .02 – – 7.70 .006 .05 .37** .19
STR Victim of Child Abuse .72 .397 .01 – – 1.15 .284 .02 – –
WRY Victim of Child Abuse 1.68 .195 .02 – – 3.03 .082 .03 – –
FML Victim of Child Abuse 3.98 .046 .03 .33** .48** 7.90 .019 .05 .30** -.18
JCP Victim of Child Abuse 7.30 .007 .05 .21** -.12 14.47 .001 .06 .22** .33*
DISC Victim of Child Abuse .90 .343 .02 – – 6.55 .011 .04 .36** .22
NEGE Victim of Child Abuse 2.86 .091 .03 – – .69 .405 .01 – –
EAT Childhood Learning Problems .35 .555 .01 – – .03 .874 .00 – –
COG Childhood Learning Problems 4.90 .027 .04 .17* -.03 4.78 .092 .04 – –
EID Internalizing Problems .60 .437 .01 – – .60 .440 .01 – –
VALIDITY OF MMPI-3 SCORES IN MALE AND FEMALE POLICE OFFICER CANDIDATES

RC2 Internalizing Problems 2.38 .123 .03 – – .00 .977 .00 – –

EAT Internalizing Problems 152.97 <.001 .21 .17 -.06** 10.22 .006 .05 -.07 .17
SFD Internalizing Problems .54 .463 .01 – – 2.29 .130 .03 – –
33

WRY Internalizing Problems .00 .952 .00 – – 1.62 .203 .02 – –

(Continued)
 34 TALERICO ET AL.

Table 5. Summary of statistically significant differential validity analyses.

WRY (Worry). BRF (Behavior-Restricting Fears). JCP (Juvenile Conduct Problems). AGG (Aggression). INTR (Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality). SUI (Suicidal/Death Ideation). EID (Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction).

Negative Emotions). RC9 (Hypomanic Activation). AXR (Anxiety-Related Experiences). IMP (Impulsivity). CYN (Cynicism). SFI (Self-Importance). MLS (Malaise). NUC (Neurological Complaints). SFD (Self-Doubt). ANP
EAT (Eating Concerns). COG (Cognitive Complaints). FML (Family Problems). BXD (Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction). RC1 (Somatic Complaints). RC2 (Low Positive Emotions). RC4 (Antisocial Behavior). RC7 (Dysfunctional
Scale Criterion Bias ω' Effect Size Interpretation

-.03
W
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
WRY Work Slope .04 Negligible Men > Women
Problems
JCP Work Slope .05 Negligible Men < Women
Problems

−.11*
AGG
M

Work Slope .05 Negligible Men < Women

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Problems
JCP Work Intercept .05 Negligible Men > Women
Problems
AGG Work Intercept .05 Negligible Men > Women
.03
.01
.01
.03
.01
.01
.04
.06
.03
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.03
Ω'

Problems
EID Legal Slope .03 Negligible Men > Women
Intercept

Problems
EAT Legal Slope .07 Negligible Men < Women
Problems
.100
.595
.712
.121
.569
.715
.095
.001
.122
.926
.765
.422
.861
.906
.769
.139
WRY Legal Slope .05 Negligible Men > Women
p

Problems
WRY Legal Intercept .05 Negligible Men > Women
Problems
FML Victim of Slope .03 Negligible Men < Women
Child
Abuse
JCP Victim of Slope .05 Negligible Men > Women
2.70
.28
.14
2.40
.32
.13
4.70
13.68
2.39
.01
.09
.65
.03
.01
.09
3.94
χ2

Child
(Anger Proneness). SUB (Substance Abuse). SAV (Social Avoidance). DISC (Disconstraint). STR (Stress). NEGE (Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism).

Abuse
BXD Victim of Intercept .04 Negligible Men < Women
Child
Abuse
RC4 Victim of Intercept .05 Negligible Men < Women
Child
-.03
-.04

-.02

Abuse
W
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

RC6 Victim of Intercept .04 Negligible Men < Women

Child
Abuse
FML Victim of Intercept .05 Negligible Men < Women
.18**
.26**

.14*

Child
M
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

Abuse
JCP Victim of Intercept .06 Negligible Men < Women
Child
Abuse
.03
.02
.01
.02
.02
.03
.04
.06
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.01
.01
.03

DISC Victim of Intercept .04 Negligible Men < Women

Ω'

Child
Abuse
Slope

COG Childhood Slope .04 Negligible Men > Women

Learning
Problems
.128
.178
.744
.217
.340
.084
.036
.000
.170
.360
.683
.161
.346
.443
.600
.048
p

EAT Internalizing Slope .21 Small Men > Women

Problems
EAT Internalizing Intercept .05 Negligible Men < Women
Problems
STR Alcohol Slope .04 Negligible Men > Women
Problems
WRY Alcohol Slope .06 Negligible Men > Women
Problems
2.32
1.82
.11
1.53
.91
2.99
4.42
13.60
1.88
.84
.17
1.96
.89
.59
.28
3.92
χ2

NEGE Alcohol Slope .03 Negligible Men > Women

Problems
WRY Alcohol Intercept .06 Negligible Men < Women
Problems
Note. Omega prime is used to quantify effect sizes (.10 small, .30 medium,
and .50 large; Cohen, 1988). = (Not significantly different). For cases of
intercept bias, > (the overall regression line systematically under-predicted
the criterion among the prior sample and over-predicted the criterion among
Internalizing Problems

the latter sample). For cases of slope bias, > (the associations between the
Criterion

scale score and the criterion were stronger among the prior sample than
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems
Alcohol Problems

among the latter sample). WRY (Worry). JCP (Juvenile Conduct Problems).
AGG (Aggression). EID (Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction). EAT (Eating
Concerns). COG (Cognitive Complaints). FML (Family Problems). BXD
(Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction). RC4 (Antisocial Behavior). RC6 (Ideas
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01.

of Persecution). DISC (Disconstraint). STR (Stress). NEGE (Negative Emotionality/

Neuroticism).
Table 4. Continued.

validity in a sample of male and female police officer can-

didates, replicating previous findings and extending them
through use of regression analyses to test for predictive bias.
NEGE
Scale

DISC
WRY

ANP
BXD

AXR

SUB
RC4
RC9

BRF

IMP
STR
EAT

JCP
EID
SFI

Taken together, the results of this and previous investigations

 VALIDITY OF MMPI-3 SCORES IN MALE AND FEMALE POLICE OFFICER CANDIDATES
indicate an absence of bias when using the MMPI-3 in
preemployment evaluations of female police candidates.
Disclosure statement
Regarding conflicts of interest, Anthony Tarescavage, David Corey, and
Yossef Ben-Porath receive research funding from the MMPI-3 test
publisher, the University of Minnesota Press. Yossef Ben-Porath is a
paid consultant to the MMPI-3 publisher, the University of Minnesota
Press, and distributor, Pearson Assessments. Yossef Ben-Porath and
David Corey receive royalties on sales of the MMPI-3 Police Candidate
Interpretive Report and derivative materials. Yossef Ben-Porath receives
royalties on MMPI-3 sales.
ORCID
Megan R. Whitman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0150-453X
Anthony M. Tarescavage http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9608-2968
David M. Corey http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6512-4512
Yossef S. Ben-Porath http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4597-6280
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association & National Council on Measurement in Education.
(2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American
Educational Research Association.
American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychological
Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines. (2020). APA guidelines for
psychological assessment and evaluation. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychologica
l-assessment-evaluation.pdf
Bass, M., Gonzalez, L. J., Colip, L., Sharon, N., & Conklin, J. (2018).
Rethinking gender: The nonbinary approach. American Journal of
Health-System Pharmacy, 75(22), 1821–1823. https://doi.org/10.2146/
ajhp180236
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual
for administration, scoring and interpretation. University of Minnesota
Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020a). Minnesota multiphasic per-
sonality inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Manual for administration, scoring,
and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020b). Minnesota multiphasic per-
sonality inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Technical manual. University of
Minnesota Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., Corey, D. M., & Tarescavage, A. M. (2017). Using
the MMPI-2-RF in preemployment evaluations of police officer
candidates. In Police psychology and its growing impact on modern
law enforcement (pp. 51–78). IGI Global. https://doi.
org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0813-7.ch003
Brace, J. C., & Savalei, V. (2017). Type I error rates and power of
several versions of scaled chi-square difference tests in investigations
of measurement invariance. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 467–485.
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000097
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confi-
dence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police.
Policing and Society, 19(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10439460802457594
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Local police departments, 2007.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops
and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in
three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45(2), 445–480.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00084.x
Chaney, C., & Robertson, R. V. (2013). Racism and police brutality
in America. Journal of African American Studies, 17(4), 480–505.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-013-9246-5
35
Civil Rights Act of 1991 § 105, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (1991). https://
www.eeoc.gov/civil-rights-act-1991-original-text
Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological
testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 511–537. https://doi.
org/10.1177/009385480325724
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2018). Assessing police and other
public safety personnel using the MMPI-2-RF: A practical guide.
University of Minnesota Press.
Corey, D. M., McElroy, H. K., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Statewide
psychological screening mandates for police candidates in the United
States: A review and comparison to the standard of practice.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Advance online pub-
lication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000487
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of
theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Goodison, S. E. (2022). Local police departments personnel, 2020. U.S.
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.
gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/lpdp20.pdf
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
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2014/2020).
Preemployment psychological evaluation guidelines: 2020 revisions.
https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Preemployment%20
Psychological%20Evaluation%20Guidelines%202014.pdf
Johnson, Roberts, & Associates, Inc. (2011). Psychological History
Questionnaire (PsyQ) for law enforcement and other public safety
applicants. Johnson, Roberts, & Associates, Inc.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2018). Psychological testing: Principles,
applications, and issues. Cengage Learning.
Lowmaster, S. E., & Morey, L. C. (2012). Predicting law enforcement
officer job performance with the Personality Assessment Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/00223891.2011.648295
Marek, R. J., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., McNulty, J. L., & Heinberg,
L. J. (2015). Validity of minnesota multiphasic personality
inventory-2-restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) scores as a function
of gender, ethnicity, and age of bariatric surgery candidates. Surgery
for Obesity and Related Diseases, 11(3), 627–634. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.10.005
Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2002). Police
disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis.
Criminology, 40(3), 519–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.
tb00965.x
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural
justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main
findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial
(QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343–367. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1
Menton, W. M., 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
Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional
manual (2nd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with
latent variables: User’s guide (Version 8).
Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal
compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 5–28.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310
Nunes, I. S. (2015). Hands up, don’t shoot: Police misconduct and the
need for body cameras. Florida Law Review, 67(5), 1811–1844.
Roberts, R. M., Tarescavage, A. M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Roberts, M.
D. (2019). Predicting postprobationary job performance of police
36 TALERICO ET AL.
officers using CPI and MMPI–2–RF test data obtained during pre-
employment psychological screening. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 101(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.
2018.1423990
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and
standard errors in covariance structure analyses. In A. von Eye &
C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for devel-
opmental research (pp. 399–419). Sage Publications.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled
difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Le, H. (2006). Increasing the accuracy of
corrections for range restriction: Implications for selection procedure
validities and other research results. Personnel Psychology, 59(2),
281–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00065.x
Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying
MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 985–1004. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093854807301224
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 performance.
Assessment, 22(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114548445
Tarescavage, A. M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015a).
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., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015b). A
prorating method for estimating MMPI-2-RF scores from MMPI
responses: Examination of score fidelity and illustration of empiri-
cal utility in the PERSEREC police integrity study sample. Assessment,
23(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115575070
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 candidates. 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 of-
ficer problem behavior and collateral self-report test scores. Psychological
Assessment, 27(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000041
Whitman, M. R., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022a). Does
prior law enforcement experience affect scores on preemployment
psychological testing? An investigation using the MMPI-3.
Psychological Services. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000679
Whitman, M. R., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022b).
Associations between MMPI-3 and psychosocial history findings
obtained in preemployment evaluations of public safety candidates.
Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/
10731911221138931
Whitman, M. R., Elias, L. S., Cappo, B. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021).
Criterion validity of MMPI-3 scores in preemployment evaluations
of public safety candidates. Psychological Assessment, 33(12), 1169–
1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001042
Whitman, M., Tarescavage, A., Glassmire, D., Burchett, D., & Sellbom,
M. (2019). Examination of differential validity of MMPI-2-RF scores
by gender and ethnicity in predicting future suicidal and violent
behaviors in a forensic sample. Psychological Assessment, 31(3),
404–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000677