FFFFDDEE PPrroocceedduurreessPrior to the evaluation, the psychologist should
request information concerning the evaluee from the
referral source. Particularly, the referral should
include the officer’s work history, including details
concerning prior incidents of concern. These may not
be exactly like those prompting the evaluation and
should be put into context by balance of the officer’s
personnel file, which may reveal positive aspects of
the worker’s past performance. If the officer has been
in treatment, these records are invaluable and may be
a basis for the psychologist’s later discussions with
the therapist. Medical records are essential as they
may reveal treatment by the officer’s primary care
physician. The incident reports surrounding the inci-
dent or incidents of concern are critical reading. If it
is an officer-involved shooting, the evaluating psy-
chologist should attend to details concerning the
observations of other officers or of the department’s
internal investigation.
The psychologist should also have a clear idea of the
duties of the officer and the skills necessary to perform
those duties. Consultation with the agency’s human
relations department or commanding officer should
help in putting together this listing. If possible, the
duties should be prioritized so that the psychologist
would have an idea of which of the skills to be assessed
are most critical to the performance of the officer’s job.
Although informed consent is necessary for any
forensic evaluation, in the case of an FFDE, thorough
informed consent is essential. In this case, the officer
must understand that the agency is the psychologist’s
client. Although it is commonly the case that forensic
psychologists evaluate individuals who are not their
clients, in this case, the interests of the officer and the
interests of the agency may diverge sharply. The eval-
uation may have one of four outcomes for the officer:
fit for duty; fit for duty with mandatory treatment;
temporarily unfit for duty with mandatory treatment;
or permanently unfit for duty. The officer should be
presented with these four options at the onset of the
evaluation so that he or she fully understands the grav-
ity of the assessment.
The officer should be informed of the parameters
of confidentiality. In most cases, the evaluation report
is closely held within the referring agency. However,
depending on the agency’s policies, it is often the case
that the officer himself or herself may never see the
evaluation report. The informed consent procedureshould include the officer signing a release to allow
the evaluator to release the results of the evaluation to
the referring agency. In some cases in which the offi-
cer’s union is involved, it may be appropriate to for-
ward the written consent and releases of information
to the officer prior to the date of the evaluation so that
the officer may confer with the union representative or
counsel before signing them.
Psychological testing is required for these evalua-
tions. The use of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality–2 (MMPI–2) test with workers in high-
risk occupations is well documented in the literature
and provides a basis for comparing the examinee with
other individuals. Some testing services offer specific
scoring and reports for this population. The
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) test also has
personnel-oriented report formats. If the issue raised
in the referral has to do with failures of attention and
concentration, a full cognitive battery, including the
Weschsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III test, may be
appropriate. Specialized testing that has been stan-
dardized on populations of police officers, such as the
Hilson or Inwald Scales, may also be appropriate.
A face-to-face interview is essential. This interview
should cover the officer’s family history, school his-
tory, and work history. A legal history, including dri-
ving violations and domestic violence, should be
obtained. A medical history, including any hospitaliza-
tions or broken bones is part of this interview. Mental
health issues, such as prior counseling or psychiatric
hospitalizations, should be covered. Another critical
issue is substance abuse history, focusing most often
on alcohol (as officers are prohibited from using illegal
drugs). Prescription drug use may be an issue, espe-
cially if the FFDE is prompted by a physical injury,
perhaps from an on-duty auto accident or shooting.
Collateral interviews are critical for most forensic
evaluations, but in FFDEs, they are essential. The offi-
cer’s current immediate supervisor should be among
those interviewed. Past supervisors are also important
to determine if the behavioral problems prompting the
evaluation antedated the incident that necessitated the
FFDE. Discussions with the officer’s spouse or a crit-
ical other are also important as this person may pro-
vide additional information about the problems that
led up to the incident. The officer’s past or current
therapists are also important collateral sources and
may provide information concerning the officer’s par-
ticipation in therapy and the degree to which thera-
peutic efforts proved fruitful.696 ———Return-to-Work EvaluationsR-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 696