Interview Behavior:

  • Question:
    I interviewed a candidate who seems likely to be on the autism spectrum, making him an unsuitable candidate for the position. Given that our goal is not to diagnose, how should I handle this in the report? Should I describe observed characteristics without labeling them, use a general description, or suggest it could be mild autism with necessary disclaimers?

    Answer:
    This situation has come up in the past, though infrequently. You’re correct in avoiding any formal diagnosis, especially with something as specific as autism, since we don’t have sufficient information to make such a declaration. Instead, focus on describing observable behaviors that would be noticeable even to a non-psychologist. These could include poor eye contact, limited emotional expression, overly rigid decision-making, and other relevant behaviors.

    Additionally, illustrate how these characteristics may impact the candidate’s ability to fulfill police duties, such as lacking command presence, difficulty showing empathy to victims, challenges with camaraderie among co-workers, freezing in crisis situations, and difficulty exercising discretion in gray areas of the law.

    This approach helps the reader understand the potential challenges without needing DSM labels, making the report clear and actionable.

  • Key Question:

    In cases where an applicant demonstrates a history of poor work ethic, integrity concerns (e.g., legal issues, dishonesty), and disregard for punctuality or policies, is it more appropriate to assign a “Weak but Suitable” or “Not Suitable” recommendation?

    Answer:

    The applicant in question is a 25-year-old male seeking a detention officer position. He presents with multiple red flags, including:

    • Unverifiable and unstable work history, with vague responses about length of employment and a termination from FedEx due to performance decline.

    • Undisclosed legal history, including a shoplifting charge in 2024 and marijuana possession in 2021—neither of which were noted on the F3, though he disclosed them during the BRAINS and clinical interview.

    • Ongoing marijuana use, with reported use within the last 5–6 months despite a recent charge—raising concerns about rule-following and legal respect.

    • Financial instability, with debts in collections.

    • Poor interview behavior, arriving 22 minutes late without notification and forgetting required documents.

    • A Wonderlic score of 5, indicating significant concerns around cognitive processing for the role.

    Despite earning a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and presenting as personable, these strengths are outweighed by integrity, dependability, and compliance concerns. While the sheriff’s office has historically hired applicants despite “Not Suitable” recommendations, clinical opinion emphasized the importance of risk management and standing by professional judgment. A recommendation of "Not Suitable" allows the psychologist to clearly document concerns and preserve FMRT’s credibility if the applicant later faces termination due to foreseeable performance issues.

    Summary:

    Due to consistent concerns about the applicant’s integrity, work ethic, and rule compliance—alongside recent marijuana use and poor interview conduct—a “Not Suitable” recommendation is warranted. While a case could be made for WBS, the risks associated with this applicant justify a more definitive clinical stance.

  • Key Question:
    When an applicant provides inconsistent information about background history, submits partial documentation, and appears evasive in clarifying details, should a “Not Suitable” (NS) determination be based on the evasiveness alone, or should the decision focus on potential functional risks that could impact performance in a public safety role?

    Answer:
    Evasiveness regarding documentation can be a concern, but on its own it is not typically sufficient to warrant an NS determination—especially if there is a possibility the explanation provided (e.g., technical or logistical barriers) is accurate. A stronger basis for NS is established by assessing whether the applicant presents functional risks that could meaningfully affect job performance.

    Key considerations include:

    • Likelihood of emotional triggers when exposed to job-related stressors or sensitive subject matter.

    • Ability to remain objective and avoid overreaction in high-pressure scenarios.

    • Risk of misinterpreting workplace interactions and escalating minor issues.

    • Capacity to work effectively in environments that may use blunt or dark humor as a coping mechanism.

    • Trust in and response to organizational processes for handling sensitive complaints.

    If there is credible concern that documentation is being deliberately withheld, involve the employer to request the complete records. Employers often have the leverage to secure timely compliance when applicants are motivated to proceed.

    Summary:
    Avoid basing NS solely on perceived evasiveness. Evaluate whether there are clear, job-relevant functional risks that could lead to performance issues or workplace conflict. Where documentation is incomplete, partner with the employer to obtain full records before making a determination. NS may be warranted when functional risks are likely to impede essential duties or compromise workplace harmony.