Practical Issues in the Use of Personality Tests in Police Selection

Abstract

Publication of meta-analyses concluding that conscientiousness predicts performance has increased the use of personality tests in police officer selection batteries. In this study, we argue that it is not always appropriate to blindly apply these meta-analytic findings in practice. Criteria for inclusion into meta-analyses for practical purposes are presented, as well as results of a meta-analysis based on these criteria. The results showed conscientiousness was neither an effective nor consistent predictor of law enforcement performance. Practitioners are cautioned against believing that there is good evidence that conscientiousness scales predict law enforcement job performance. B arrick and Mount's meta-analysis on the relation between personality and job performance is considered a seminal article in the field of personnel selection. This study and others that followed it 1 have led to a general acceptance of the five-factor model of personality and its usefulness in predicting performance for all jobs. As a result, the use of personality tests as alternative selection devices in personnel selection has been advocated, specifically for selection of police officers. 2 Meta-analysis has been the foundation for theory and conclusions regarding the predictive validity of personality tests. 3 Often overlooked, however, are the practicalities of translating meta-analytic results to the practice of personnel selection. We argue in this paper that practitioners must be cautious in applying meta-analytic results to actual applicant settings. General problems with meta-analysis have been discussed elsewhere, 4 and have been noted in other fields such as medicine. 5 In this paper, we specifically address problems with indiscriminately applying meta-analytic results to real-world settings, using law enforcement occupations as an example. This is especially timely since the Department of Justice (DOJ) has advocated the use of personality tests to reduce adverse impact. 6 This paper has several goals. First, we examined the basis for the assertion that personality tests predict entry-level law enforcement officer performance. This discussion will focus on the difficulties associated with practical applications of meta-analytic results. In order to guide practitioners, we identify inclusion criteria that increase the

Predicting turnover of police officers using the sixteen personality factor questionnaire

“…Given the lack of existing empirical research on the personality-turnover relationship, the most prudent approach to personality characteristic selection would be an inclusive rather than exclusive approach. As tough-mindedness, or openness to experience, is a distinctive police officer characteristic compared to non-police populations (Snibbe, Fabricatore, & Azen, 1975;Topp & Kardash, 1986) and has shown to predict superior police officer performance (Barrett, Miguel, Hurd, Lueke, & Tan, 2003;Fabricatore, Azen, Schoentgen, & Snibbe, 1978), this was also included in the study.…”

The Development of a Thurstone Scale for Identifying Desirable Police Officer Traits

“…Psychological testing is generally viewed as an important tool in the process of selecting law enforcement employment applicants, with a marked increase in the use of such tools since the 1970s (Barrett et al 2003;Cochrane et al 2003). Of the many psychological/personality inventories that are available, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory has been the most widely employed, with as many as 71.6% of municipal police departments using this inventory (Barrett et al 2003).…”

“…Of the many psychological/personality inventories that are available, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory has been the most widely employed, with as many as 71.6% of municipal police departments using this inventory (Barrett et al 2003). Other scales commonly used by police departments are the Inwald Personality Inventory which was developed for use with law enforcement (IPI, Inwald 1992), the California Personality Inventory (CPI, Gough and Bradley 1996), and more recently the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R, Costa and McCrae 1992).…”

“…A number of studies have indicated that the MMPI, the IPI, and the CPA can be useful in identifying problematic police officer behaviors (e.g., Barrett et al 2003;Chibnall and Detrick 2003;Inwald and Shusman 1984;Kornfeld 2000), with some authors reporting superiority of the IPA over other measures in predicting problematic police officer job performance (Simmers et al 2003). Unfortunately, while these scales may be useful screening-out devices, they appear to be poor in predicting positive performance reports (Chibnall and Detrick 2003;Lough and Ryan 2005).…”

“…A number of studies have since emerged illustrating the usefulness of the NEO PI-R in the prediction of various aspects of police performance (e.g., Cortina et al 1992;Black 2000;Chibnall and Detrick 2003). However, many authors suggest that personality measures should be adjunctive to other traditional screening-out measures since the ideal combination of tests is unknown and may be job specific (see Barrett et al 2003;Chibnall and Detrick 2003). In addition, using traits in a selection process can be problematic since they are inherently difficult to firmly define and observe.…”