Inconsistencies in Responses:

  • Consistency across the applicant's interview, testing, BRAINS Assessment, Personal History Statement (PHS), F-3, collateral records, and other documentation is an important component of every psychological evaluation.

    While isolated discrepancies may result from misunderstanding, poor memory, or documentation errors, significant or repeated inconsistencies may raise concerns regarding integrity, judgment, accountability, and reliability.

    Evaluators should objectively document discrepancies, seek clarification whenever possible, and assess whether the inconsistencies materially affect the applicant's suitability for a safety-sensitive position.

  • A large number of "Prefer Not to Answer" responses may indicate reluctance to disclose personal information or concerns about sharing sensitive information with the employer.

    Rather than addressing every omitted response individually, psychologists should identify whether a pattern or theme exists.

    Examples include:

    • Substance use

    • Financial concerns

    • Criminal history

    • Abuse or trauma

    • Employment issues

    • Mental health history

    Applicants should be given an opportunity during the clinical interview to clarify or elaborate on these areas.

    If the pattern suggests the applicant was not forthcoming during the assessment process, this should be documented in the report as a concern regarding openness and transparency.

  • Significant inconsistencies should always be explored during the interview before reaching conclusions.

    Examples include:

    • Conflicting employment history

    • Military service discrepancies

    • Criminal history omissions

    • Prior disciplinary actions

    • Substance use history

    • Mental health history

    • Educational history

    When discrepancies remain after clarification:

    • Document the inconsistency objectively.

    • Distinguish verified facts from applicant self-report.

    • Avoid speculation regarding intent.

    • Consider whether the inconsistency raises concerns regarding integrity, judgment, or reliability.

    • Recommend additional background investigation when appropriate.

    Not every inconsistency warrants a Not Suitable recommendation. The significance depends on the nature, severity, and potential occupational impact of the discrepancy.

  • Any admitted criminal behavior disclosed during the evaluation should be documented, regardless of whether it resulted in an arrest, charge, or conviction.

    Examples include:

    • Theft

    • Assault

    • Drug offenses

    • Domestic violence incidents

    • Other criminal acts acknowledged by the applicant

    These disclosures should be documented when clinically relevant, particularly if they:

    • Were omitted from official application materials.

    • Raise concerns regarding integrity.

    • May be important to the hiring agency's background investigation.

    The purpose is not to determine legal guilt but to ensure that relevant behavioral information is appropriately communicated to the hiring agency.

  • Inconsistencies become clinically significant when they suggest broader concerns regarding:

    • Integrity

    • Judgment

    • Accountability

    • Reliability

    • Decision-making

    • Respect for rules and policies

    Examples include:

    • Repeated omissions across multiple documents.

    • Contradictory explanations during the interview.

    • Denial of previously documented events.

    • Failure to disclose criminal behavior.

    • Significant discrepancies in employment or military history.

    • Attempts to minimize or conceal important historical information.

    The recommendation should be based on the cumulative clinical picture rather than any single discrepancy.

    When integrity concerns are accompanied by additional risk factors—such as poor judgment, recent substance use, work performance concerns, or other clinically significant findings—a Not Suitable recommendation may be appropriate.

    Report Guidance:

    FMRT no longer utilizes Weak but Suitable (WBS) recommendations.

    Applicants should be found either:

    • Suitable, with integrity concerns documented in the Weaknesses section of the report; or

    • Not Suitable, when the pattern of inconsistencies raises substantial concerns regarding the applicant's honesty, judgment, reliability, or ability to safely perform the position.

    • Consistency across all evaluation materials is an important indicator of integrity.

    • Provide applicants an opportunity to clarify discrepancies before reaching conclusions.

    • Document discrepancies objectively and avoid speculation regarding intent.

    • Distinguish verified information from applicant self-report.

    • Admitted criminal behavior should be documented regardless of legal outcome when clinically relevant.

    • Evaluate patterns of inconsistency rather than isolated discrepancies.

    • Integrity concerns should always be considered within the context of the overall clinical picture.

    • FMRT recommendations are Suitable or Not Suitable. When concerns do not warrant a Not Suitable recommendation, they should be documented in the Weaknesses or Disqualifiers section of the report.