View all blogs

Defining good practice: Psychological screening in Canadian public safety roles

by

By the nature of the role, public safety professionals will inevitably find themselves in situations with very high stakes. In these scenarios, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and emergency responders must display good judgment under pressure, regulate their emotions, and use the authority granted to them responsibly. 

Given this context, psychological screening becomes more than a simple hiring formality. Instead, it is a risk management tool. Poor hiring decisions in these types of roles can carry drastic consequences for both the employee and the organization they work for, including, but not limited to, increased risk of workplace injury, legal exposure, damaged reputations, and risks to public safety. For these reasons, it is essential that hiring organizations employ good practices, which often include using experienced and knowledgeable professionals when conducting pre-employment psychological screenings.

“Good practice means following established procedures and guidelines,” says Dr. Sandra Jackson, a clinical and forensic psychologist with extensive experience in pre-employment and employment evaluations for high-risk jobs. “The evaluator needs to be aware of established procedures in psychology and guidelines posted by various organizations for the industry.”

What makes public safety hiring different from corporate hiring?

Psychological screenings for public safety positions are more extensive than what a candidate might expect in the private sector or a more standard government role. While a university, a bank, or a marketing agency might screen for personality traits that would make a candidate a good cultural fit or a high performer, public safety hiring, first and foremost, is a type of risk evaluation.

“I’m not just looking at what’s best for the employer,” explains Dr. Jackson. “I’m also looking at what’s best for the public and for the candidate.”

That difference in scope creates a significant responsibility for the evaluator and the hiring organization to incorporate a highly structured, more rigorous screening process. Pre-employment psychological screening for public safety roles generally involves:

  • Multiple data sources (interviews, background checks, psychological testing).
  • Standardized, science-backed assessment tools (e.g., MMPI-3, MPQ, Raven’s 2, MAB-2, 16PF, M-PULSE, NEO-PI-3).
  • An understanding of job-related competencies that have been identified in the literature, as well as possible local needs or characteristics of a specific job role. 

This increased level of scrutiny for public sector hiring also plays a critical role in who evaluates the candidate. Public safety assessments are typically conducted by a licensed and trained psychologist who not only uses evidence-based methodologies but also understands the research upon which they are designed. This results in hiring decisions that can withstand scrutiny from regulators, courts, and the public. 

Ensuring a psychological screening process is defensible

Psychological screenings for public-sector roles in Canada must meet a high bar for legal defensibility. Hiring decisions — especially for armed or high-risk positions — may come under examination after the actual hire, especially if an incident occurs and/or if there are concerns about fair or biased hiring practices.

Therefore, good practice requires alignment with broader legal and professional standards, such as federal and provincial human rights codes and legislation, privacy requirements, data-handling regulations, regulators' standards of practice, and ethical guidelines from organizations such as the Canadian Psychological Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) – Police Psychological Services Section.

Equally important is how the evaluation itself is structured. Dr. Jackson emphasizes the importance of maintaining objectivity and grounding decisions in data rather than relying solely on clinical impression. She highlights the following key elements of a defensible screening process:

  1. Job-relevant competencies. Evaluation decisions should be anchored in selection criteria and related to the probability of effective and safe job performance. Care should be taken to avoid making broad evaluations of mental health status or providing recommendations without focusing on job competencies.
  2. Multiple data points. Use two or more psychometric measures; at least one needs a solid validity measure. Structured or semi-structured interviews, background/reference information, behavioural observation and information from other steps in the selection process should all be considered. This often allows for a fuller picture of the candidate and improves the likelihood that patterns in functioning will emerge. This increases the validity of the evaluation and reduces the risk of error in judgment.
  3. Structured processes. The assessor should use a standardized interview process, with structured or semi-structured questions, to increase consistency across all candidates.
  4. Clear documentation. The psychologist’s report should provide transparent reasoning for the recommendations made while ensuring they focus on functionality related to the selection criteria. It is important to avoid language and reasoning that would violate human rights. In addition, the report should outline the candidate’s strengths as well as employment concerns.

When elements of this process are missing, there is a greater risk that bias can influence the decision. “When bias enters into the process, candidates can suffer; it can lead to bad hires for the organization, and it puts the evaluator at risk for a complaint,” Dr. Jackson explains. 

Tips for conducting a balanced evaluation

It is important to set ground rules and expectations for the evaluation so that all stakeholders understand your role. The following guidelines can help to set evaluators up for success:

  • Ensure consent and limits of confidentiality are clear and transparent to the candidate.
  • Clarify that you are not entering into a therapeutic relationship with the candidate.
  • Explain why feedback is typically not given.
  • Make sure both the candidate and the employer understand you are making recommendations for one component of the hiring process. Using pass/fail criteria/language is not recommended as “cut-offs” are not outlined or recommended in the literature, and any hiring decision is not your responsibility. 
  • Be professional, as this process is often the public safety officer’s initial exposure to a mental health care provider. 

Structuring public safety recruitment for accountability

As part of accountability, it is important to recognize the reality that screening is not a static process. “You need to maintain competency, constantly attend workshops, and be up on the literature as well as the applicable laws in your jurisdiction,” Dr. Jackson adds. “You have to be aware of all the levels of standards, guidelines, and aspirational practices, and take personal responsibility for staying on top of them.”

In other words, good practice is not a one-time framework that assessors can follow. It takes an ongoing commitment to consistency, transparency, and improvement.

Sustaining good practice in public safety screenings

Defining good practice for psychological screening in public safety roles ultimately comes down to making decisions grounded in evidence, structured processes based on science-backed methodologies, and maintaining professional accountability. These practices protect the hiring organization, the assessed candidates, and the public by ensuring all hiring decisions are fair, defensible, and aligned with the realities of the job.

To learn more about psychological screenings for public safety roles in Canada, visit the Pearson public safety page or speak to a Pearson representative.