WIXLIB

ForewordThe POST Psychological Screening Manual was first issued in 1984. The ensuing years witnessed significant andregular developments in the laws, regulations, and professional guidelines that impact peace officer psychologicalscreening. POST has been at the forefront of these changes—shaping revisions to government codes,creating new requirements to ensure the job-relatedness of psychological screening and the professionalismof psychological evaluators, and actively participating in updates to professional guidance. The volume andsignificance of those developments necessitated a major revision to the Manual, resulting in the publication of thePOST Peace Officer Psychological Screening Manual in 2014.Publication of the 2014 Manual marked an important milestone in POST’s mission by helping to ensure that, asstipulated in California Government Code § 1031(f ) and POST Commission Regulation 1955, every peace officer is“free from any emotional or mental condition, including bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion,disability, or sexual orientation, that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer and tootherwise ensure that the candidate is capable of withstanding the psychological demands of the position.” Thereis no more important goal than this.An unanticipated but gratifying outcome of the 2014 publication of this Manual has been the impact that it hashad on the practice of preemployment psychological screening of peace officers and other public safety personnelacross the United States. Several of our counterpart agencies in other states have adopted major elements ofthe Manual as guidance for psychologists conducting screening evaluations in their jurisdictions. It has beendescribed as “essential reading on the state of the art in preemployment psychological screening of peace officerapplicants” (Mitchell, 2017, p. 30), and the POST Peace Officer Psychological Screening Dimensions detailed in theManual have shaped not only professional practice, but they also have explicitly influenced empirical research(e.g., Detrick & Chibnall, 2017; Sellbom, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2020; Tarescavage, Corey, Gupton, & Ben-Porath, 2015;Tarescavage, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015; Whitman et al., 2021) and legal decisions outside of California (e.g., Brownv. Sandy City, Utah, 2014).This current revision to the Manual incorporates guidance from the updated Principles for the Validation andUse of Personnel Selection Procedures (American Psychological Association, 2018a), the Practice Guidelines forOccupationally Mandated Psychological Evaluations (American Psychological Association, 2018b), as well aschanges in law, practice guidance on conducting psychological evaluations remotely, and findings from a widearray of published peer-reviewed research on the use of preemployment psychological tests to predict posthire outcomes in peace officers. Finally, this version of the Manual includes extensive new information on theassessment of bias in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 846 (2020).The guidance contained here continues to offer evidence-based processes and procedures to implement thepeace officer psychological evaluation requirements of Commission Regulation 1955 and other relevant federaland state requirements. The comprehensive breadth of information covered is of relevance not only to screeningpsychologists but to hiring authorities and others involved in the peace officer hiring process as well. In fact, oneof the significant takeaways from this Manual is the importance of communication between the psychologist, theagency, and others in ensuring that the psychological suitability of each candidate is thoroughly vetted.As an outgrowth of the 2014 version of this Manual, POST created continuing education for psychologicalevaluators, including a list of POST-approved courses that meet the POST Continuing Professional Education(CPE) requirements for screening psychologists, stipulated in Commission Regulation 1955(b). To date, POSThas approved over 300 courses for more than 1,300 CPE credit hours, contributing to the development andmaintenance of professional competence of nearly 250 California licensed psychologists.Questions about this Manual or peace officer psychological screening in general should be directed to theStrategic Communications and Research Bureau.MANUEL ALVAREZ, JR.POST Executive DirectorPEACE OFFICER PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING MANUAL v

AcknowledgementsThe creation of a manual of this breadth and scope is not possible without the assistance of seeminglycountless individuals.A steering committee of blue-ribbon psychologists guided the development of these guidelines from itsonset. The members of that committee are listed in Appendix I. Certain key members of that committee meritspecial recognition for their involvement throughout the many phases of this project, most notably Drs. SusanSaxe-Clifford, Gerard Sumprer, Michael Roberts, Philip Trompetter, Robin Inwald and Michael Cuttler.In addition to clinical psychologists, key figures in the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology wereinvolved in the project from its inception. First and foremost is Dr. Deniz Ones, who as the primary contractorfor this project served multiple, pivotal roles, assisting in project development, implementation and oversight.Together with Drs. Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Stephan Dilchert and Michael Cullen, she conducted thePOST meta-analysis that provided empirical evidence for the validity of the POST Psychological ScreeningDimensions.Drs. Karen Amendola, John Dovidio, Calvin Lai, Rashawn Ray, and Manual co-author David Corey served assubject matter experts in developing the Bias Assessment Framework and other materials in response to AB 846(2020). Appendix Q provides a list of AB 846 project participants.Dr. Donna Denning, another eminent I/O psychologist, devoted countless hours offering expert advice andsupport throughout this effort, from helping shape the project through to providing painstakingly carefulreviews of early drafts of the Manual. Drs. Yossef Ben-Porath, Jocelyn Roland, Casey Stewart, and PhilipTrompetter also provided invaluable feedback.Law enforcement and legal experts provided pivotal input and support as well. Subject matter experts whoparticipated in the workshops leading to the creation of the Psychological Screening Dimensions are listed inAppendix H. POST Assistant Executive Directors Jan Bullard and Alan Deal, and Senior Consultant Jeff Dunnprovided careful reviews of early drafts. In addition to reviewing the draft manual, POST legal counsel William“Toby” Darden provided legal advice, support and reassurance on an as-needed basis. The authors haveturned to Sharon Rennert, EEOC Senior Attorney Advisor, numerous times over the years for unfailing helpwith the interpretations and implications of the ADA and GINA.Information on specific written instruments was provided by test publishers and researchers, including Drs.Paul Detrick (NEO PI-R), Yossef Ben-Porath (MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-3), Michael Stowers, Scott Stubenrauch andShaun Wehle (PSI), Michael Roberts (CPI & PAI), Ryne Sherman (Hogan), Michael Cuttler (LESI), and Kevin M.Williams (M-PULSE).POST Selection Standards Program Manager Melani Singley has been and remains the backbone of thisproject and provided oversight of subsequent updates to this Manual. She is a quick-study, team-player, andbenevolent task master.Last but certainly not least, we thank former POST Executive Director Bob Stresak for his unwavering supportleading to the 2014 publication and current POST Executive Director Manuel Alvarez, Jr. for his ongoingcommitment to ensuring that the POST Peace Officer Psychological Screening Manual remains a valued sourceof up-to-date information and practice guidance for POST-registered Psychological Screening Evaluators.Shelley Weiss SpilbergDavid M. CoreyPEACE OFFICER PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING MANUAL vii

viiiCOMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

ContentsPOST Mission Statement. iPOST Commissioners. iiiForeword . vAcknowledgements . viiTables. xiOrganization of the Manual .xiiiChapters1 Goals and Philosophy . 1Target Readership.1Target Occupation .2Target Evaluation .2Psychological Traits vs. Disorders .2Screen-Out vs. Select-In .2Pre-Ofer vs. Post-Ofer .3Focus on Psychological Constructs vs. Specifc Tests.3Psychological Testing vs. Psychological Assessment .3The Integral Role of the Psychologist .3Guidelines vs. Standards .4Setting Realistic Expectations .4Legal Information vs. Legal Advice.42 Legal, Regulatory and Professional Requirements . 5Background.5Statutory and Regulatory Requirements .6Equal Employment Law and the Psychological Evaluation .9Professional Standards and Guidelines. 183 Selection and Training of Screening Psychologists . 31Qualifcations of a Screening Psychologist. 31Peace Ofcer Psychological Evaluator Competencies. 31Education and Training in Peace Ofcer Psychological Screening . 37Selecting Screening Psychologists . 39Agency Orientation and Ongoing Integration of the Screening Evaluator. 414 Development and Validation of the POST Peace Ofcer PsychologicalScreening Dimensions. 45Overview of Literature . 45POST Psychologically-Based Job Analysis . 50Final Products: Peace Ofcer Psychological Screening Dimensions andAssociated Critical Incidents . 55Methodological and Statistical Limitations of Research on Psychological Prediction of PolicePerformance . 76POST Meta-Analysis. 78PEACE OFFICER PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING MANUAL ix

5 Evaluation Process and Procedures . 93Agency Responsibilities. 93Screening Psychologist Responsibilities. 95Step 1: Orient the Candidate, Verify Identity, and Obtain Informed Consent and Waivers. 96Step 2: Administer Personal History Questionnaire(s) and Written Tests . 99Step 3: Review Scored Written Tests, Personal History Information, and RelevantHealth Records .100Step 4: Obtain Additional Candidate Information, if Needed, From Others Involved inthe Hiring Process .101Step 5: Conduct the Psychological Interview.102Step 6: Assess for Explicit and Implicit Bias Using the Bias Assessment Framework .102Step 7: Determine if Additional Candidate Information is Needed and/or ProvideInformation to Others Involved in the Hiring Process .107Step 8: Integrate Data to Make a Suitability Determination.107Step 9: Prepare and Submit the Written Report and Declaration of Candidate Suitability.108Step 10: Respond to Agency Requests Involving Appeals/Second Opinions.109Step 11: Obtain and Analyze Post-Hire Outcome Data and Revise AssessmentMethodology, As Needed .1106Written Psychological Tests .111Test Information Resources .111Test Selection Considerations .112Psychometric Considerations .113Evaluation Criteria and Considerations.114Test-Taking Approaches and Their Measurement.116Specifc Written Tests .1197Personal History Information .129Personal History Research.129The Background Investigation and the Psychological Evaluation .1318 The Psychological Screening Interview.145The Psychological Screening Interview vs. the Employment Interview .145Psychological Screening Interview Purposes .145Interview Structure .147Interview Topics.148The Interview Process.149Privacy/Invasiveness .1549 Reaching a Determination Through Data Integration .155Risk Management vs. Risk Assessment .155Clinical vs. Actuarial Prediction.155Diagnoses vs. Determinations.156Integrating Multiple Sources of Information .157Evaluate Written Testing.158Evaluate Personal History Information.162Evaluate the Psychological Interview .163Reach a Determination .164Validate the Determination.164xCOMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

10Evaluation Reporting Requirements, Guidelines and Second Opinions .167Minimum Reporting Requirements .167Narrative Report Considerations.167Risk Ratings .168Interactions With Others Involved in the Hiring Process.

Chief, Marina Police Department . James O’Rourke . Sergeant, California Highway Patrol . Batine Ramirez . Sergeant, Placer County Sherif’s Department . iv . COM