BPAD: Opinions from LE ???

[WS-G]

I've read all the info available about the Behavioral Personnel Assessment Device (BPAD) that's on the manufacturer's own website: http://www.bpad.com . For all the comments about it being "validated", I'm not convinced. The commentaries endorsing it as a selection test appear to be predominantly anecdotal. Further, the manufacturers themselves state that in trials of BPAD examinees, subjected to the "canned" scenarii and graded according to the standardized criteria, experienced LEOs failed at approximately the same rate as individuals with no prior LE training at all.

While the manufacturers are quick to emphasize that "over 400 agencies in the US and Canada" use the BPAD, I noticed that most of these tend to be small to mid-sized departments (often in upscale, suburban communities). Major agencies were conspicuous on the list by their absence. The only State-/Provincial-level agency I saw listed as a BPAD user was the Ontario Provincial Police, and no Federal-level agencies. Large metropolitan PDs/SOs seem to avoid the BPAD as well. The major emphases seem to be (1) eliminating individuals perceived as litigation risks and (2) minimizing costs.

I've run through that test once myself as soon as a graduated the Basic Academy, and made a lot of the typical "rookie" mistakes (in my case, walking into each scenario too obviously ready to escalate, too assertive, etc.). While I know there were a number of areas that needed improvement, I still came away wondering whether this device — as marketed — is merely an attempt by a private think-tank to sell its trendy product while turning LE into a force of standard robots responding to standard scenarii in standard fashion.

As no two officers, members of the public or sets of circumstances are the same, I question whether it's even wise to try to quantify the behavioral factors in the manner the BPAD attempts to do. While I can see it as possibly making a good training aid, I have my reservations about its use as a selection tool.

Opinions anyone?

------------------
ex Co. G (-)(Abn/Rgr), 143d INF(LRRP), TXARNG 1981-1985
ex 433MAW (AFRES), 1985-1991
FAA-certificated pilot and Advanced Ground Instructor

[This message has been edited by William M Salter (edited 07-11-2000).]

[Sharky]

Sounds like a crock to me boss. I ALWAYS go in ready to escalate. If I see that I can de-escalate safely then I will but I will NEVER be caught with my hands in my pockets.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[RECON5]

Mr. Salter -

Let me start off by saying that I have never personally nor do I intend to take the BPAD. I have however worked with three very different individuals, who have all taken the BPAD for the same agency. One, a former marine (security forces), very aggressive, but very by the book. Failed "too aggressive - or as you were told "too quick to escalate". Two, a college grad 3 year patrolman, very laid back (not a real "go getter"). Failed "too aggressive". Three, former Army K-9 handler, very aggressive, but laid back personality, a real cut up. Failed "too aggressive. When I mention aggressive, I am speaking in terms of thier attitude tword thier work, not confrontational. I have heard all three incidents, and from working with all three I believe they reacted as they descibed to the scenarios they were presented with. None of the three have any indications (in thier personell files, or that I have seen) that would make you believe they were a "litigation risk". POINT.....The BPAD can make anyone look like a gung ho "out to kill all the bad guys" type individual. I spoke with a jailer, who just took the BPAD, and scored the highest score the agency he tested for had ever seen. I asked him his secret...."learn how the system works, and tell them what they want to hear". Go figure.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the test. It is generally (in Texas) used by small to mid size depts in more affluent cities to weed out "ANY possible litigation risk". The other thing I have found is that if you talk to the officers, who work for those agencies, you generally would question how they passed the test. Test like that jailer or learned about the real world from pre-BPAD officers?

Do not be discouraged, there are plenty of agencies out there who do not use the BPAD, which in my opinion someone with SF background would not pass if done honestly, and would appreciate the experience and training you would bring to thier agency. That along with the fact that LE agencies are experiencing an all time low in the number of applications for open positions would lead me to believe your on the selective end of the deal. Just remember LE unlike the military has one key word they get stuck on "LIABILITY" and the BPAD will let you know which agencies put it high priority.

Just my .02 worth

REMEMBER 1*

[Erick]

Hopefully, I'll never have to take one of these. My opinion is that it is a tool to hire "kinder & gentler" instead of those that the job truly requires.

When I came on, 600 applied for 6 slots. After the Lt. gave the drug use policy speech, 100 +/- left the written test. After the written, 250 of us remained. We then took the Physical Agility Test. From there, they had 150 to look at. IIRC, 100 went to an oral board consisting of two sergeants and a LT. After that, 18 of us went through the background process. I don't know how were called back for an interview with the Sheriff, but 6 of us were sworn in together.

I mention all of that, because the written and the 1st oral board have gne Bye-Bye as a result of the BPAD. We're now hiring folks we shouldn't be, eventually we'll pay for it like other departments have.

[WS-G]

Erick:

My own experience with the BPAD was straight out of the basic academy, when I applied for the Richardson (TX) Police Department. The RPD is an excellent department, and still has a written test as the first step. I'd say that of the writtens I've taken for any department, theirs is the most difficult of any I've seen — including those given by the US Border Patrol and the Oregon State Police.

When I showed up for initial testing for the Richardson PD, there were about two dozen applicants, maybe a little more. Only 13 passed, and I was ranked #1 with a score of 93%. We were competing for 4 vacancies.

I was back the following week for the Myers-Briggs Temperament Inventory (MBTI) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) exams. I'd taken both of these before — the MMPI as a prerequisite to the academy.

Of the two, only the MMPI seeks to ferret out any psychological abnormalities; the MBTI is simply a temperament-type survey and seeks only to assess which of 16 normal personality types one falls into (4 scales: Introversion-vs-Extraversion, Sensing-vs-iNtuition, Thinking-vs-Feeling, Perceiving-vs-Judging. See http://www.keirsey.com or http://www.typelogic.com for more info) — on the Myers-Briggs, I classify as a textbook example of type "INTJ" (http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html).

Neither of these tests were any surprise. We were subjected to the BPAD during the same session, which had not been announced in the department's recruiting literature. According to the background investigator who supervises the RPD's hiring process, this was something new to their department. Apparently, we were the one of the first groups of RPD applicants to be given the BPAD test. To the RPD's credit, the use of the BPAD was not the department's own idea — it was evidently foisted upon them by the city council.

I received a letter from the RPD the following week advising that I'd been dropped from further consideration, but would be eligible to re-apply after a two-year waiting period. As a matter of policy, that department requires that all applicants who get dropped from selection, regardless of the reason (e.g.: even something as simple as ranking #3 when only 2 vacancies exist), must wait two years before they can apply again. Ironically, those who voluntarily drop out at any point and give notice saying "I quit" only have to wait six months! Go figure.

I have to agree that the combination of written tests, PT tests and an initial interview are effective. When I tested for the Oregon State Police, less than 20% of us got invited back for the Secondary Interview — which still left some 200 semi-finalists to consider for 30 slots. Only those ranked in approximately the top quarter on this phase got to proceed to the Background Investigation.

------------------
ex Co. G (-)(Abn/Rgr), 143d INF(LRRP), TXARNG 1981-1985
ex 433MAW (AFRES), 1985-1991
FAA-certificated pilot and Advanced Ground Instructor

[This message has been edited by William M Salter (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Hap]

Gentlemen,

I am currently in the process of applying to 3 police forces in Canada...the RCMP, York Regional Police (4th largest municipal police force in Canada) and the Toronto Police Service(largest municipal police force in Canada). I had to take the BPAD as PHASE 2 of my Pre-Interview Testing (PIT) for police service in Ontario - many police forces in Ontario subscribe to the BPAD texting, including the Ontario Provincial Police, as Mr. Salter alluded to. You have to pass Phase I and Phase II before you can even apply to many forces in Ontario.

I was told, by the agency that conducts the test, that 95% of the people that make it to Phase II testing pass the BPAD (compared to a 45% pass rate for Phase I - the standard written/physical aptitude testing). I actually quite enjoyed the BPAD - only for being fairly 'unortodox', with regards to standard testing procedures. The difference is, though, while many of you say that you have taken the BPAD AFTER you have received some kind of formalized training, I was told that no knowledge of police procedure was required. ...Maybe this IS a test to look for the 'kinder and gentler' people...all I know is I responded as I would have NOW...who knows how I would have responded after I have actually been out there, walking the beat, and seeing how things REALLY work.

For people in Ontario aspiring for a career in LE, there is a good chance that they will all have to do the BPAD before they can even submit an application fo their force of choice (more and more forces are subscribing to it). But before they get to that, they still have to get through the traditional tests.

It looks like it's here to stay - especially since every force is trying to minimize individuality and is looking to standardize across the board...

Just a little food for thought...

Hap

[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 07-15-2000).]