process. However, employers may choose to use a psy-
chological FFDE to mitigate discipline and develop
rehabilitation or accommodation plans. It is best for this
process to be outlined in the employer’s written policies.
The FFDE begins with a referral. This referral nor-
mally involves a written summary statement of the
employer’s concerns and the evidence in support of
those concerns. The referral also generally includes
any specific issues the employer wishes to have
addressed. It is best if the standards for triggering an
FFDE and the process involved are in the employer’s
written policy. When accepting referrals for FFDEs,
ethical concerns require evaluators to consider whether
there are any dual-relationship or conflict-of-interest
issues that interfere with the evaluator’s ability to per-
form the evaluation competently and effectively.
The employer is normally considered the client in
an FFDE, not the individual being evaluated. In most
situations, employees referred for FFDEs are com-
pelled to participate as a condition of employment.
However, it is generally considered advisable to
obtain the employee’s written informed consent for
the evaluation and the communication of the results of
the evaluation to the employer. When informed con-
sent is not sought, evaluators are still ethically obli-
gated to inform the individual being evaluated of the
nature of the evaluation and the expected use of the
obtained information.
FFDEs include psychological testing, clinical
interviews, and collateral information to enable the
evaluator to determine if the incumbent employee is
able to safely and effectively perform the essential job
duties of the position or specialty assignment. The
psychological testing frequently includes an objective
psychological measure designed to assess psychopathol-
ogy and an objective psychological measure designed
to identify psychological strengths and weaknesses in
nonpathological populations. Many evaluators also
include some sort of measure of cognitive function-
ing. This test selection is similar to that used in
pre-employment evaluations. However, in FFDEs,
additional measures designed to assess relevant issues
or problems may be included. The collateral informa-
tion includes the job description (including any
additional requirements of specialty assignments),
employment and medical records, reports from super-
visors and coworkers, and reports from family mem-
bers and friends.
When the FFDE is complete, the evaluator must
communicate the results, usually to the employer orthe employer’s legal representative. Many of the stan-
dards for what may be communicated to employers
following an FFDE are regulated at the state level.
Case law in some jurisdictions severely limits the
information that evaluators may communicate to the
employer without violating the employee’s privacy
rights. Without the written consent of the individual
being evaluated, evaluators need to exercise caution in
communicating any information about the individual
other than fitness for duty to the employer. Even with
consent, only essential and relevant information
should be included. If a lack of fitness involves confi-
dential issues or other people (e.g., a health problem
in an employee’s spouse), evaluators should ensure
that the information communicated does not violate
privacy standards in that jurisdiction.
Usually, the report will include an outline of the
actions involved in the evaluation and the evaluator’s
conclusion concerning the individual’s fitness for duty.
The categories are fit for unrestricted duty, fit for
restricted duty (which could include regular work
activities with mandatory treatment), or unfit for any
duty. Additionally, when the employee is unfit for
unrestricted duty, it may be described as temporary or
permanent. If the lack of fitness is temporary, recom-
mendations for facilitating the return to fitness are
appropriate. It is usually difficult to consider a psycho-
logical condition permanent without a treatment trial.Nancy Lynn BakerFurther Readings
Borum, R., Super, J., & Rand, M. (2003). Forensic
assessment in high risk occupations. In I. B. Weiner
(Series Ed.) & A. D. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of
psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology(pp. 133–148).
New York: Wiley.
IACP Police Psychological Services Section. (2004).
Psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation guidelines.
Alexandria, VA: Author.FITNESSINTERVIEW
TEST–REVISED(FIT–R)
The Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R) is an
instrument designed for use by mental health profes-
sionals in evaluations of competence to stand trial.322 ———Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R)F-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 322