Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion. Critique your colleague’s conclusions and rationales. Assess any personality instruments recommended by your colleague. Suggest and explain other measure(s) your colleague might use in this situation. If you concur with your colleague’s recommended assessments, provide a rationale explaining why. Use the assigned readings, and additional research as necessary, to support your assertions.1st JohnsonYesterdayJun 29 at 6:31amManage Discussion EntryI have examined Mr. C, and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically at risk for exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. While this candidate has the skills and knowledge to be successful as a police officer, his history demonstrates a strong degree of recklessness and a tendency for using forcefulness on others without warrant. Mr. C was given a psychodiagnostic assessment known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). This test is commonly used as an instrument to carefully choose candidates to work in the field of law enforcement (Selbom, Fischler, and Ben-Porath, 2007). Mr. C’s scores on the MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 scale were elevated in the areas of aggressiveness, psychoticism, disconstraint, neuroticism, and introversion. This implies pathology and chronic patterns in these personality traits. My professional opinion is that Mr. C may potentially enjoy intimidating and physically abusing others. This would present problematic behavior with civilians and other officers on the unit. Therefore, he would not be an ideal candidate for the position of a police officer.I have examined Ms. D, and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Ms. D’s scores on the MMPI-2-RF were very close to the mean scores. While there were inconsistencies found with the candidate under-reporting, there was no psychological dysfunctions found in this candidate’s test scores. However, further testing is required as psychological dysfunctions cannot be ruled out since there was under-reporting found in the candidate’s interview. It is recommended that Ms. D is given the Employee Productivity Index (EPI) to be assessed on her level of integrity related to job duties. One negative aspect of utilizing this assessment is that it is very simple for applicants to be dishonest during screening (Gregory, 2014). In this way, it is important that examiners are trained in how to spot dishonesty. Per Gregory (2014), integrity tests can forecast behaviors that negatively impact job performance.One ethical issue that may arise in interpretation of the test scores is that candidates can be labeled as insane or even criminal. This is not always the truth as test scores are meant to be used to determine whether a candidate is a good fit to work in the field of law enforcement. Interpretation of test scores is not meant to speak on an individual’s sanity or lack therof. Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Sellbom, M., Fishler, G., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2007). Identifying MMPI – 2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985–1004.2nd KulowYesterdayJun 29 at 8:08pmManage Discussion EntryIn this discussion I am assuming the role of an I/O Psychologists hired to assessed the psychological qualifications for two potential police candidates; Mr. C. and Ms. DMr. C.Upon examining Mr. C in my professional opinion based off of the results from his MMPI assessment even though he ranks normal in the assessment I feel that based off of his past, his violent behaviors towards others, his aggressiveness to others even including his family members I believe that he would not be suited for a position as a police officer. Based off of his test when he tested in the Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales he tested higher than normal in the Aggression, Family Problems, and Social Avoidance Scale. Additionally, I feel that because of his social issues and being able to adjust to society psychologically Mr. C would have difficulty taking on the tasks and role of a police officer as most of their duties involve interacting with the public and serving as a representative of a specific department. (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014).Ms. D.After assessing Ms. D’s MMPI assessment in my professional opinion I feel that this person is psychologically capable of conducting the duties and tasks of a certified police officer. The results show that Ms. D scored within normal reasonable ranges of the assessment I have examined Ms. D, and it is my professional opinion that this person is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgement and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Ms. D was administered the MMPI-2-RF assessment. Results of this test indicate that Ms. D’s diagnostic considerations indicated that she has no significant problems/issues in areas such as emotion, behavior, cognition, or somatic dysfunction but, due to indications of under-reporting, such problems/issues cannot be totally ruled out. Ms. D’s scores on the substantive scales are within normal range/limits for police officer candidates (Corey & Ben-Porath, 2014).However there is some concern with Ms. D’s underage drinking that she had had in the past, along with her conflicts with her family. Because of this I feel that Ms. D. should have an additional assessment done that would help me identify any interpersonal traits not covered by the MMPI that would be beneficial for her to take on the tasks and role of a police officer.