Practical Issues in the Use of Personality Tests in Police Selection

• Author: James A. Tan,Sarah B. Lueke,Jennifer M. Hurd,Rosanna F. Miguel,Gerald V. Barrett
• Published date: 01 December 2003
• Date: 01 December 2003
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/009102600303200403
• Subject Matter: Article

Practical

Issues in the

Use

of

Personality

Tests

in

Police

Selection

Gerald

V.

Barrett

Rosanna

F.

Miguel

Jennifer M. Hurd

Sarah B. Lueke

James

A.

Tan

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

selec-

tion. This

study

and others that followed it1 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 per-

sonnel 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 practicali-

ties

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 espe-

cially

timely since the Department

of

Justice

(DOJ) has advocated the use of personal-

ity

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 discus-

sion

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

Public Personnel Management Volume

32 No. 4

Winter 2003 497

applicability of meta-analysis results to an actual personnel selection setting. Our sug-

gestions extend the work of

Hurtz

and Donovan,7 who took an important initial step

by

addressing construct validity threats

(i.e.,

how personality tests map onto the Big

Five

framework), treatment of the criterion domain, and the use of relevant samples in

meta-analysis. Second, we conducted a selection-relevant meta-analysis using appro-

priate inclusion criteria to examine the relation between personality and performance

in law enforcement occupations.

Why

Entry-Level Law Enforcement

Selection?

We

focus on law enforcement because these occupations have many characteristics

that make them particularly meaningful to examine. Starting in the mid

1970s8

and

continuing to the present time,9 there has been a high propensity for litigation in law

enforcement

officer

selection. Law enforcement selection batteries typically include

cognitive

ability tests,10 which tend to result in adverse impact.11 Employers have a

genuine interest in finding alternatives for hiring entry-level law enforcement

officers

that will reduce or eliminate adverse impact while maintaining or increasing predictive

validity.

Since

the sure techniques of race and gender norming are no longer viable

options because of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of

1991,

interest has

turned

to examining

the

efficacy

of including personality tests in selection batteries to reduce adverse

impact.12

The

use of personality tests to select law enforcement

officers

has become quite

common. A noticeable increase in the use of such tests has occurred since the

1970s.13

By

far, the most commonly used personality test by municipal police departments is

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI)

(71.6 percent), followed by

the Clinical Interview (57.4 percent) and the Personal History Questionnaire (52.9 per-

cent).

Furthermore, approximately 24.5 percent of municipal police departments use

the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and 18.7 percent use the 16 Personality

Factor

(16PF).14

However, information regarding the use of these

specific

tests

(e.g.,

given pre- or post-offer, compensatory or non-compensatory model) or the actual sub-

scale

or scales used was not available. This widespread use of personality tests for

police

selection, most notably the use of non-clinical personality tests, may be partially

a

result of meta-analytic results suggesting their usefulness.15

The

Practical

Application

of

Meta-analysis

Theory

building has benefited greatly from meta-analytic results. From a practitioner's

standpoint, however, applying these broad generalizations to a

specific

selection set-

ting presents considerable practical difficulties. First, it can easily lead to legally inde-

fensible

actions. A test should not be included in a selection battery solely on the basis

of

meta-analytic findings. A thorough

understanding

of the

local

job and the

specific

jobs

and samples represented in the meta-analysis is necessary.16 Second, general con-

clusions based on meta-analysis provide little guidance for choosing

specific

selection

tests or scales within a test. Although several scales may

purport

to measure a particu-

498 Public Personnel Management Volume

32 No. 4

Winter 2003