Evaluations involve five psychological tests which measure the broad base of characteristics required for law enforcement duty, as well as contraindicated features that offset that limit or disqualify candidates. The tests are standardized instruments that have long been used in clinical, occupational and emergency service settings. After completing testing, psychologists review test results. Each candidate is then interviewed using a structured, or standardized, interview protocol. This interview is an essential element that permits a defendable recommendation. Law enforcement personnel must be effective interacting with others. Without a sample of interaction, the evaluating psychologist cannot effectively assess candidates' interpersonal skills. Standardization is essential because the interview is in every way a performance test. How well one does depends in large measure on what is asked. If it is not standardized, there is a critical flaw in the selection process, as applicants cannot be assured of the fairness of the procedure, nor can Agencies/Departments be confident that all of the relevant issues are explored. The structured interview that our firm uses has been in use in tens of thousands of law enforcement screenings. It has been generated by Dr. Hibler over some two decades of development, use and validation. None of the thousands of applicants screened has successfully challenged a finding. The content of this interview has been developed for its relevancy to assessing reliability and the psychological attributes that are involved in law enforcement duty. The sequence of topics and how inquiry is made are designed to facilitate rapport. At the same time, the careful choice of topics and questions logically build an understanding of the interviewee that is relevant to the demands of law enforcement duty. We ask for permission to tape record interviews so there is a record of what was or was not said. This interview is copyrighted and although proprietary, is sufficiently protected by copyright law and professional ethics that it is not necessary for departments to handle it with any special precautions. For police applicants, we most often use afive point rating scale.It is similar to a report card, in which the ratings detail the confidence held in candidates' psychological suitability. The final recommendation is formed from test results, history and interview behavior. Making a recommendation on just test results is unethical by the standards for practice of the psychology profession.We go further, however, working closely with the employer to review the accuracy of information reported by the applicant during psychological interview. It should also be mentioned that psychologists have no way of knowing if biographic or historical information provided by an applicant is accurate or complete. In the worst case scenario, applicants maximize their accomplishments and minimize or omit their shortcomings and wrong-doings. This is another reason why the structured interview is vital. Attempts to manipulate are recorded and are undisputable. Yet manipulation and deceit are usually evident only when the Department's applicant processing unit compares histories and explanations provided during psychological screening to the background investigation. Accordingly, where dishonesty occurs, we are pleased to update our earlier report by revising the final rating as a failure; reliability requires integrity. Exceptionally well qualified applicants, and conversely, those who are clearly unacceptable, are easily identified. The area of most frequent concern addresses the mid range of qualification. In many cases our detailed procedures and interaction with candidates permits even greater definition of competitiveness. As would be expected, most candidates are in the average range of competitiveness. Distinguishing between those who border on a "B" (and are therefore a "C+") or are marginal and border on a "D" and rated as "C-") can make the difference in the Department's really difficult choices. It can also have special significance in dealing with minority candidates. Our ratings are fair, accurate and defendable. It should be noted, however, that there is no normative test data for such definitive analysis of non-sworn personnel. Accordingly, Dispatchers, Corrections Officers, Fire Marshals and other occupational groups are reported only with a three rating framework.These categories are "Recommended," "Recommended with Reservation" and "Not Recommended."