Psychologists should describe observable behaviors rather than speculate about or assign diagnoses that are outside the scope of the evaluation.

When clinically significant behaviors are observed, document what was directly seen or reported rather than attempting to label the condition.

Examples include:

• Poor eye contact

• Limited emotional expression

• Concrete or rigid thinking

• Difficulty interpreting hypothetical situations

• Limited behavioral flexibility

• Restricted affect

• Poor interpersonal reciprocity

• Difficulty understanding social cues

• Unusual speech patterns

• Observable anxiety or agitation

The report should explain how these observed behaviors may affect the applicant's ability to safely perform the essential functions of the position.

For example, observable behavioral characteristics may reasonably raise concerns regarding:

• Command presence

• Empathy toward victims

• Communication with coworkers

• Adaptability

• Crisis decision-making

• Ability to exercise discretion

• Interpersonal effectiveness

• Stress tolerance

Avoid assigning diagnostic labels unless they are clearly supported by sufficient clinical evidence and are appropriate within the scope of the evaluation.

Interview behavior should be considered clinically significant when it demonstrates characteristics that may impair safe or effective occupational functioning.

Examples include:

• Poor judgment

• Dishonesty

• Lack of accountability

• Poor insight

• Significant emotional dysregulation

• Poor impulse control

• Inappropriate interpersonal behavior

• Extreme rigidity

• Lack of motivation

• Poor reliability

• Disregard for policies or expectations

Interview observations should always be considered alongside:

• Objective psychological testing

• Background information

• Employment history

• Criminal history

• Behavioral observations

• Collateral information

No single interview behavior should determine the recommendation independently. Instead, evaluators should assess the cumulative pattern of functioning.

When multiple concerns are consistently demonstrated—including integrity concerns, poor work ethic, disregard for rules, recent substance use, poor interview conduct, and weak cognitive functioning—a Not Suitable recommendation may be appropriate based on the overall risk profile.

Report Guidance:

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

Applicants should be found either:

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

• Not Suitable, when the cumulative concerns indicate the applicant lacks the psychological characteristics necessary to safely perform the position.

Applicants occasionally provide incomplete documentation, inconsistent historical information, or vague explanations during the evaluation.

These situations should be approached objectively.

Consider:

• Whether inconsistencies appear intentional or reasonably explained.

• Whether missing information materially affects the evaluation.

• Whether additional documentation is available.

• Whether the applicant demonstrates honesty and cooperation throughout the evaluation.

Perceived evasiveness alone is generally not sufficient to support a Not Suitable recommendation.

Instead, the evaluator should determine whether the incomplete information prevents an accurate assessment or reveals clinically significant concerns regarding:

• Integrity

• Judgment

• Accountability

• Emotional functioning

• Occupational reliability

• Ability to perform the essential functions of the position

When clinically important documentation remains unavailable, psychologists should work with FMRT support staff and the hiring agency to obtain the necessary records before finalizing the evaluation whenever practical.

If records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts, document the limitation and explain how it affected the evaluation.

• Describe observable behavior, not suspected diagnoses.

• Explain how observed behaviors may affect occupational functioning.

• Evaluate interview observations alongside testing, records, and collateral information.

• Consider the cumulative impact of multiple behavioral concerns rather than relying on any single observation.

• Incomplete or inconsistent information should prompt clarification whenever possible.

• Evasiveness alone is generally insufficient to support a Not Suitable recommendation unless it reflects broader concerns regarding integrity or occupational functioning.

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