Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Title

Journal of Personality Assessment


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, 2014Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2014). User's guide for the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]; Roberts & Johnson, 2001Roberts, M. D., & Johnson, M. (2001). CPI: Police and public safety selection report technical manual. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]). 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.

Included in

Psychology Commons