No abstract

We examined associations between prehire California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and prorated Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores (calculated from MMPI profiles) and supervisor ratings for a sample of 143 male police officers. Substantive scale scores in this sample were meaningfully lower than those obtained by the tests' normative samples in the case of the MMPI-2-RF and meaningfully higher in the case of the CPI (indicating less psychological dysfunction). Test scores from both instruments showed substantial range restriction, consistent with those produced by members of the police candidate comparison groups (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014 ; Roberts & Johnson, 2001 ). After applying a statistical correction for range restriction, we found a number of meaningful associations between both CPI and MMPI-2-RF substantive scale scores and supervisor ratings. For the MMPI-2-RF, findings for scales from the emotional dysfunction and interpersonal functioning domains of the test were particularly strong. For the CPI, findings for scales indicating conformity with social norms, integrity, and tolerance were strong, as were the findings for an index indicating risk of termination. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that MMPI-2-RF and CPI scores complement each other, accounting for incremental variance in the prediction of job-related variables over and above each other. Implications of these findings for assessment science and practice are discussed.

Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development.

No abstract