The article headlined “Inconsistent approach to police psych exams” (Sunday Monitor Local & State, Sept. 20) suggests the problem with police “screening” exams was inconsistency. The actual problems involve quality and process.

Most psychological tests are for general use. The good tests are well known and have established “reliability and validity, and the test results are stable and measure what they claim to measure.

However, standards promulgated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) state that police tests should have “documented reliability, validity, and other empirical evidence supporting their use in the pre-employment evaluation of public safety applicants.” Tests specifically developed for police selection are often very unreliable and have unknown validity. The two tests cited in the article, the Inwald Personality Inventory and the M-PULSE are so flawed that I am unsure how any psychologist could ethically administer these tests.

This situation is far worse than the use of poor tests.

One might lump psychological tests into two categories: tests where applicants are urged to do their best work, such as achievement tests like the SAT and ACT, and tests where applicants are urged to be honest and candid about themselves, such as personality tests.

As personality tests, the Inwald and M-PULSE are clearly in the second category, but applicants who take these tests are clearly in the first category. Added to this mismatch is the well know weakness of self report measures.

Applicants, even when they intend to be candid, are often inaccurate in describing themselves. Additionally, there are test prep companies that will coach the applicant to obtain a “normal” score on the numerous scales of the test so as not to arouse the suspicions of the administering psychologist.

This may be the case as both psychologists who were interviewed rarely found any applicant unqualified based on test results. Fortunately for the hiring police departments, by the time an applicant completes the flawed testing, that applicant has been “well vetted” so the hiring departments have simply paid for a service that has no value but probably did no harm.

Years ago I put together a battery of three psychological tests (aptitude, verbal, and quantitative). I added a multipage “biodata” form based on a task analysis of police work, now specified by IACP. I tested approximately 1,500 applicants for 10 departments over three years. Applicants were tested early in the hiring process and approximately half of the applicants qualified for hiring consideration. These applicants were referred to police departments for further hiring consideration.

Departments could even have applicants ranked based on their specific needs. The biodata form was particularly helpful. Applicants were asked about their past interests to determine if these interests corresponded with the duties of a police officer and the needs of a specific department. Departments regularly remarked regarding the quality of applicants that they received. How many applicants were later referred to me for a further “psychological fitness” evaluation? Not a single one.

The solution to the psychological evaluation of police officers is not to consistently use poor tests that have no selection value late in the hiring process but to use quality tests and procedures that conform to standards early in the process allowing department to chose wisely among well qualified applicants.

(Maurice Regan is a psychologist and part-time college instructor. He lives in Pembroke.)