Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

psych eval?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I am the Law
    [X] Agree
    [ ] Disagree
    That was easy.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by wilrobnson
    Oh, I know what they are, I had to get a copy of my credit report from them last week

    I agree about their qualifications wholeheartedly, when a test asks a question like "Select Agree or Disagree= I like to hear children scream in pain."
    I am the Law
    [ ] Agree
    [ ] Disagree

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    This reminds me of that psycho National Guard sergeant on the movie "Earthquake." He was taunted by individuals in his neighborhood before the quake. When they were arrested for looting after the quake, he mowed them all down with an M-16.
    Sorry, it came out the year before I was born

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by wilrobnson
    I had to take two for this job, one when I first began working unarmed wile waiting for the armed license, and the MMPI clone before the "training" for the armed fed contract. Nothing like the 9 hour battery of tests and an hour long interview with a shrink to get my last LE job though.

    One of my friends took the MMPI-wannabee test for the armed contract here, and was told he'd failed. He requested a review from the testing company, Choicepoint, and was told he'd been turned down due to "authoritarian tendencies".

    Is it any shock we get some wackjobs?
    This reminds me of that psycho National Guard sergeant on the movie "Earthquake." He was taunted by individuals in his neighborhood before the quake. When they were arrested for looting after the quake, he mowed them all down with an M-16.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Choicepoint?! ROFL. These guys aren't qualified to give a psychiatric battery. They're a credit reporting/employment screening company used mostly by retail companies.
    Oh, I know what they are, I had to get a copy of my credit report from them last week

    I agree about their qualifications wholeheartedly, when a test asks a question like "Select Agree or Disagree= I like to hear children scream in pain."

    Leave a comment:


  • MartinMc
    replied
    Yes Most Definitely whether armed or unarmed it should be mandatory

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Choicepoint?! ROFL. These guys aren't qualified to give a psychiatric battery. They're a credit reporting/employment screening company used mostly by retail companies.

    Is it sad that the kid bagging groceries at your local Target is hired through Brassring, given a full credit check by Choicepoint, and a 600 question "psych assessment" through Choicepoint?

    Browse their site. You'll find that most of their "tests" are in fact "guidelines to help you establish compliance with federal anti-discrimination" laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • tlangsr
    replied
    Originally posted by sgtnewby
    Minnesota does not require psych evals as a state requirement for security personel. But my employer, Hennepin County Medical Center, does require us to take the MMPI, the California version (I forget what it's called), and one other that I can't remember the name of. So, three total, and sometimes people get called back for an interview with a doctor for what they call "answering too honestly." I used to work armed security here and they don't even require a drug screen. I think the whole process here needs an overhaul.

    Nate
    I think the whole industry needs an overhaul, Psych Evals and drug test. my last two Security/LE jobs I recieved neither. One of which we were armed and in HIGH stress situations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I had to take two for this job, one when I first began working unarmed wile waiting for the armed license, and the MMPI clone before the "training" for the armed fed contract. Nothing like the 9 hour battery of tests and an hour long interview with a shrink to get my last LE job though.

    One of my friends took the MMPI-wannabee test for the armed contract here, and was told he'd failed. He requested a review from the testing company, Choicepoint, and was told he'd been turned down due to "authoritarian tendencies".

    Is it any shock we get some wackjobs?

    Leave a comment:


  • sgtnewby
    replied
    1 flew over the cookoo's nest...

    Minnesota does not require psych evals as a state requirement for security personel. But my employer, Hennepin County Medical Center, does require us to take the MMPI, the California version (I forget what it's called), and one other that I can't remember the name of. So, three total, and sometimes people get called back for an interview with a doctor for what they call "answering too honestly." I used to work armed security here and they don't even require a drug screen. I think the whole process here needs an overhaul.

    Nate
    Last edited by sgtnewby; 02-24-2007, 08:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by ValleyOne
    Perhaps I am the only one in the dark on this discrimination issue. Why or more to the point how could it be seen as discriminitory if you screen people who are typically-not always-in a postion of authority, especially people carrying guns, using a psych eval? Several non government occupations require the evals and, to my knowledge. have not been deemed discriminitory

    I agree this is a far off to be seen in wide practice in out field, and that is solely a financial reason.
    Screening instruments (like any tests used for employment) should be free from any elements that might discriminate, even inadvertently. Since all language is influenced by culture, it requires special care to be sure that you're not asking questions that might be expressed in a way that people of some cultures might not understand or would misunderstand.

    While a number of occupations - security/police or not - do require evals, the requirement itself is not where the question of discrimination comes in, but in what instruments are used for the evals. Some well-known eval tests have been shown to have discriminatory flaws that have resulted in fairly significant penalties. Seems to me I read of one not too long ago involving a state police agency, in fact, and it was forced to revise it's whole eligibility process. If I remember correctly, this involved male/female discrimination, not racial. Can't put my finger on it now.

    Leave a comment:


  • ValleyOne
    replied
    Perhaps I am the only one in the dark on this discrimination issue. Why or more to the point how could it be seen as discriminitory if you screen people who are typically-not always-in a postion of authority, especially people carrying guns, using a psych eval? Several non government occupations require the evals and, to my knowledge. have not been deemed discriminitory

    I agree this is a far off to be seen in wide practice in out field, and that is solely a financial reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by tlangsr
    Should the states require Security Officers to take Psych Evals in order to gain employment in this industry.
    Instinctively, the answer to whether armed security or police should be screened for mental illness is not only "YES" but "HELL, YES!"

    But which mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association puts out this enormous publication called the DSM-IV that, in simple terms, defines "mental illness". They have even debated including "nicotine addiction", and they have a powerful incentive to call virtually any kind of "unusual" or "undesirable" behavior a mental illness...because that means that insurance will have to pay them to treat it. It's very much the fox guarding the chicken coop and the conflict of interest here is absolutely blatant.

    And then, there's the question: Once we decide which mental illnesses we should exclude, what degree of those mental illnesses are we talking about excluding? Literally millions of Americans suffer from some mild form of "clinical depression", for instance - at least the way the APA defines it.

    And finally, there's an even bigger question: How do we reliably screen for these mental illnesses? If the "experts" can examine the same individual and come out on on opposite sides of a black/white question like legal insanity, each one swearing the person was or was not capable of something as basic as distinguishing right from wrong, how can we get agreement on all the possible shades of gray? And, every single one of the so-called "screening instruments" like the MMPI (in all of its versions) have been the subject of serious controversy.

    So, it's a very, very thorny question, and one that police, military, intelligence and other organizations have struggled with for years, throwing literally $millions at the question, and they still have had only mixed success. As some have already pointed out, the security industry isn't going to spend much if anything on this question anyway, so it's really hard to see where we go from here.

    Maybe the only answer for now is a more practical, or "intuitive" one: Get to know a little about the people you hire, and don't hire them - especially as armed officers - if your gut feeling tells you that there's something squirrely about them. If you've already hired someone and you find yourself worrying that they're going to do something crazy with that gun, maybe you should seriously consider moving them to an unarmed position, at least.

    "Instinct" is the name we give to warnings or impressions that come from the subconscious. We can't explain how it works, but instinct seems to be a way that the brain puts together all kinds of signals that we're not even aware of consciously. So, it can be a very good idea to pay attention to instinct and we usually ignore it at our peril. If you're an experienced security officer and someone you're working with "bothers you" in terms of their mental stability, I'd bet money there's some reason and it's probably a good one.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-24-2007, 02:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    It's definately a good idea, but as N.A. said, unlikely to become a requirement anytime soon..

    Of all the different companies I've worked for, the ONLY one that issued a psych test, was the first one... Working UNarmed at a mall...

    Leave a comment:


  • tlangsr
    replied
    Originally posted by Chucky
    I fully believe that would be a good thing although how many armed guards have you ever heard of doing this same type of thing? When I filled out the forms for my cert the only question close in nature to the subject was "Have you ever been committed against your will for a period of more than 3 days to a funny farm? (To early to look up proper spelling) I said to myself are you kidding that's all they require?
    I would think that guys dad would have intervened and had his guns taken away long before this shooting happened.
    he is the only one I've heard of, but that doesn't mean much considering some S/O still use dope, and some dopers do stupid stuff.

    As far of his dad not intervening, any "normal" parent would have intervened.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X