See alsoExpert Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness
Identification; Exposure Time and Eyewitness Memory;
Eyewitness Memory; Mug ShotsFurther Readings
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1986). On the memorability of the
human face. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, &
A. Young (Eds.),Aspects of face processing (pp. 61–70).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1996). Updating the scientific validity
of three key estimator variables in eyewitness testimony.
In D. Herrmann, C. McEvoy, C. Herzog, P. Hertel, &
M. K. Johnson (Eds.),Basic and applied memory
research: Vol. 1. Theory in context(pp. 421–438).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wixted, J. T., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1991). On the form of
forgetting. Psychological Science, 2,409–415.RETURN-TO-WORK EVALUATIONS
A worker may be required to leave the workplace
because of the experience of an extreme stressor on the
job, disability, discipline, or concern about threat. That
same worker may wish to return to the job, raising
questions about whether the worker may effectively
resume functioning. This entry deals with several kinds
of evaluations conducted by forensic psychologists to
determine if a worker is fit to return to the job. The first,
the fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE), is a specialized
evaluation that occurs in safety-related or “high-risk”
jobs such as fire fighting, police work, or security. The
second, the return-to-work evaluation (RTE), occurs in
more general situations in which the worker has been
removed from the job because of disability.Fitness for Duty in
High-Risk Occupations
High-risk occupations, such as police or security work,
have much less tolerance for emotional or behavioral
dysfunction than other positions. In situations in which
the worker’s very life, the lives of others, or the security
of the nation depend on the worker being fully func-
tional, the anxiety disorder or impulse control problem
that would cause some problems in an office job or trade,
effectively disables the worker. This heightened standard
requires that the employer take greater care when mak-
ing decisions about returning the worker to the job.In high-risk occupations, two kinds of concerns
would prompt an FFDE. The first is when there is a
reason to believe that the worker may pose a signifi-
cant danger to himself or others. Concerns about the
worker’s ability to function safely may arise from a
number of sources, which must usually be directly
observed or derive from credible third-party informa-
tion. For example, a police officer may have demon-
strated poor judgment or impulse control on the job
and used excessive force in detaining or arresting a
suspect. Or a security guard may have failed to inter-
vene when an unidentified individual entered the
secure area of an airport. These behaviors may result
in disciplinary action such as suspension or consider-
ation of permanently removing the officer from duty.
The second concern focuses on whether the worker
may have symptoms of a mental or substance abuse
disorder that would significantly interfere with the
worker’s ability to perform essential job functions. Of
course, this focus is not mutually exclusive from the
first, in that a mental illness or substance abuse prob-
lem may very well underlie a safety-related issue. For
example, a police officer who is dependent on alcohol
may arrive on the job in a hung-over condition, which
would result in impaired alertness and reduced effec-
tiveness in a dangerous situation.IIAACCPP GGuuiiddeelliinneess
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP) Police Psychological Services Section ratified
the Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation Guide-
lines in 2004. These constitute widely accepted con-
siderations and procedures for these evaluations.
These guidelines lay out the qualifications for exam-
iners and remind the examiner that the client in an
FFDE is the employer, not the employee. In addition,
the guidelines indicate that the evaluator should be
properly qualified and should obtain sufficient back-
ground information concerning the employee’s rele-
vant work history and the issues that raised the
question of fitness for duty. The examiner must obtain
proper informed consent and written authorization to
release the findings from the evaluation to the refer-
ring agency. The guidelines also include recommen-
dations for the elements of the evaluation and the
structure and content of the evaluation report. For pro-
fessionals conducting FFDEs with police officers, the
IACP guidelines are usually the best guidance, and
adherence to them may be required by the referring
agency.Return-to-Work Evaluations——— 695R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 695