Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 11 in the text, the articles by Baez (2013), Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007), Morgeson, Campion, and Dipboye (2007), Peterson, Griffith, Isaacson, OConnell, and Mangos (2011), and the , , and brochures on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website. Evaluate the MMP1-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for . and For this discussion, you will take on the role of an industrial-organizational psychologist recently awarded a contract to evaluate potential police candidates. The purpose of the evaluations is to determine the psychological capability of the applicants to be certified as police officers in your state. The applicants you are examining are applying for certification and will be vested with a position of public trust. If certified as police officers, the individuals will likely be required at some future time to exercise significant physical strength and undergo high emotional stress. As the examining psychologist, you are required to comment on the applicants social comprehension, judgment, impulse control, potential for violence, and/or any psychological traits that might render her or him psychologically at risk to be certified. The state requires that each applicants examination include the following elements: For the purposes of this discussion, assume the interview and history information reported to you by Mr. C. and Ms. D. is unremarkable and that neither candidate communicated anything to you during the interview that raised concerns about her or his capabilities to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to be certified as a police officer. Review the MMP1-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Reports for and and evaluate the professional interpretation of this testing and assessment data from an ethical perspective. In your initial post, communicate your conclusions about Mr. C. and Ms. D., either recommending certification or communicating reservations. After you have made your decision, begin the section on each candidate with one of the following statements, identifying each candidate by name. : Review several of your colleagues posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion. Critique your colleagues 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 colleagues recommended assessments, provide a rationale explaining why. Use the assigned readings, and additional research as necessary, to support your assertions. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post. Carefully review the for the criteria that will be used to evaluate this Discussion Thread.
