At the present time, it is widely understood that many thousands of job applicants for U.S. Federal jobs, as well as applicants for employment and employees for many contractor firms that do business with the Federal Government, are waiting for adjudication decisions regarding potential security clearances for which they have been ‘put in for’ by their employers or by the Government itself. The Government is rapidly growing in those parts of it that are related to security and defense; also, many more employees of contractor firms, which are associated with the same security and defense interests, are growing in number. This sudden growth, connected with the great decline of defense-related money, interest and government investigational personnel that took place in the 1990s, now makes for a very bad combination of needs and resources. A large number of applicants/candidates for potential security clearances, but with a currently reduced number of Governmental security investigation/adjudication assets in place, can be expected to result in quite lengthy delays. It is being reported that, on the average, the investigation and adjudication phase can take about a year to 18 months and that a fairly large percentage take even longer. A significant reduction in these delays is not expected to take place in the near future.

     Would it not be extremely helpful, to say the least, to be able to accurately predict, right at the very beginning of the whole process that eventually turns into investigation and adjudication phases, whether the applicant or candidate would end up successfully being granted the necessary clearance or whether the individual would fail in this regard. If accurate prediction information was actually available, those individuals who would be expect to learn after waiting 18 months or so that they would end up being unsuccessful and would not be granted the wanted clearance, might very likely close themselves out and decline the employment or assignment. There would be little to gain and much to lose to accept an employment arrangement in which one would have to quit or be terminated in about a year’s time, due to the fact that the necessary required clearance was refused. The same could be said for actual government employment - no sense waiting for a job offer to come, that is dependent upon a granting of a security clearance when one already is aware that it is most likely that the clearance will not be granted, it will not be issued.

     For Governmental human resources and security departments, consider all the time and money that might be saved if a large number of those applicants/candidates for security clearances, who eventually would be denied their needed clearances, would drop out or terminate the whole process very shortly before or after it started. For contractor organizations, think of all the money that could be saved if candidates for possible security clearance obtaining would all drop out early in the investigation and adjudication process. Such persons then would not have to be placed, for long periods of time into ‘make work’ type assignments. or where the involved employees are temporarily assigned, usually far below their abilities/skills levels. This latter type employment arrangement is usually regarded as being a most costly period of time for the employer.

     Is it possible that accurate prediction of eventual success/failure for eventually being granted a high-level security clearance can now be accomplished? Based upon sound scientific psychometric research practices, the Personnel Security Standards Psychological Questionnaire (PSSPQ) is the tool that allows for such accurate predictions. [A rather full description of the PSSPQ, and its development history, can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspq.html.] It should be noted that the PSSPQ was validated using one of the very highest federal security clearance levels, what is known as "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information" or more frequently described as TS-SCI. The adjudication standards for the TS-SCI clearance are currently described in the Director of Central Intelligence Directive 6/4 publication (i.e., DCID 6/4); prior to 1998, the adjudication standards for this clearance level were put forth in the DCID 1/14 publication(s). Since the TS-SCI clearance level is just about at the very top in its stringency, it is highly logical and proper to assume that anyone predicted to be successful in being granted such a clearance would also be fully successful in being granted any designated lower-level clearance, such as at the Confidential, Secret, Top Secret (not further specified) and ‘other’ levels.  In some governmental organizations, use of other high-level security clearance designations that are known by other labels, such as the Q level clearance in the Department of Energy.  Some of these are regarded to be at a somewhat similar high-level as is the TS-SCI clearance.

     However, with all of the ‘difficult’federal  employment laws of the past couple of decades, is use of the PSSPQ legal? The answer is "yes," but it advised to be used in a very specific and certain manner so as to not be perhaps ruled as illegal, based upon the ADA Act of 1994.

     The suggested procedure is as follows. Very early on, in the recruitment process, the applicants/candidates are informed by their potential future employer that it is suggested, for the informational benefit of the applicant/candidate, that he/she be administered the PSSPQ, that the potential future employer will pay for the applicant’s/candidate’s taking the test, and that the results will only be provided to the applicant/candidate. It should be strongly communicated that the potential employer (which could be the Federal Government) would never be explicitly informed of the prediction results obtained using the PSSPQ. It is expected that those applicants/candidates who would be told that it would be highly likely that they would end up unsuccessful with respect to eventually being granted the hoped-for security clearance would, in fact, drop out early-on and inform the involved contractor or Governmental organization that they no longer want to be considered as viable applicants/candidates.

     The costs-savings-gain ratio of such an effort can be expected to be sizable. At the present time, individuals only pay $125.00 to take the PSSPQ and to receive its multiple scored results in an easy-to-understandable form, which includes a probability statement of success/failure for eventually being granted the hoped-for clearance. For larger involved organizations, the $125.00 fee can be negotiated if multiple admissions of the PSSPQ are planned. [Full discussion of individual sales regarding the administration of the PSSPQ can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/individualsales.html.] When a prescribed fee amount is compared to the actual costs associated with all the Government’s investigation and adjudication process costs (which can in many cases easily reach $10K to $20K, some very REAL savings can be expected. Savings for contractor organizations can be expected to occur when an employee who, because he not yet has been cleared and as a result is in some type of ‘make work’ assignment that normally is far below his abilities/skills (and pay level!). For such an employee, this status could easily continue for well over a year or so before he and the organization is informed that he will not be getting the needed clearance. It is understood that in some such cases, the financial costs to the contractor organization can easily run into the ‘tens of thousands’of dollars.

     It should be understood that Dr. Stone only suggests that this particular arrangement for use of the PSSPQ, which has been described in the two previous paragraphs, has been already successfully employed; other possible paradigms of use immediately come to mind. Although never actually empirically validated in the security clearance granting/obtaining field, Dr. Stone has constructed another test of character and trustfulness. It is entitled as the Probity/Honesty Inventory (PHI). The PHI actually is a 50-item, shortened version of the PSSPQ. It has been shortened by removal of a couple scales that are believed would represent illegal subject-area questioning under the 1994 ADA law. Although honesty norms (based upon a large group of individuals who at the time held even higher than TS-SCI clearances)  have been developed for the PHI, no validity work with respect to security clearance obtaining/rejection has yet to be accomplished with this particular instrument.  It should be noted that the PHI, if it is considered to be an 'Integrity' test, that it has been validated with a superior validity criterion measure or variable than have most of the other available  integrity tests that have been (and are) sold to evaluate honesty levels of job applicants.

     In actuality, the applicant/employee, who will be unsuccessful in eventually being granted a required security clearance, will be very thankful that you, his/her potential employer, suggested (and paid) for his/her being administered the PSSPQ. He/she generally can be expected to benefit financially in learning early-on that a lack of success is predicted with respect to his/her obtaining the needed security clearance. In fact, the financial benefit experienced by the applicant/candidate is somewhat likely to exceed that of the hiring organization itself. However, an even greater benefit is more directly seen by the applicant/candidate, he/she does not have to face the embarrassing situation of having waited for a year or more, which is not unlikely, and then have to face a major ego-loss ‘rejection’. Early-on discovery or learning that a clearance would be predicted to not be forthcoming is usually much easier to take and accept, simply due to the fact that, at that early point in time, very little has been expended and no long-term expectations have been held. Also, the applicant/candidate can be expected to always ‘harbor’ the idea that maybe, the PSSPQ prediction might have been in error and that the wanted and needed security clearance would have been theirs had they waited for the evaluation/adjudication process to be completed. In this fashion, in future years they can come to the comfortable idea that they too could have been granted a high-level security clearance had they decided that they wanted it. Such could represent a major face-saying self-perception with which they could be comfortable.

     For any organization’s Human Resources [i.e., Personnel] Office and/or its Office of Security wanting to explore possible deployment, on a sustained or trial basis, of the PSSPQ, it is suggested that they contact Dr. LeRoy A. Stone.  Dr. Stone’s Web Site can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/home.html and his e-mail address is: lastone2@earthlink.net.  His postal mailing address is: P.O. Box 395, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425-0395.

     Other Web Site ‘sub-pages’that have content directly associated with the PSSPQ are:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspq.html,
(The above can be considered as a sort of index or home page for the PSSPQ section/portion
in Dr. Stone's overall Web Site)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/individualsales.html,
(The above was developed as being designed purposely for individuals who might be interested
in being administered the PSSPQ; it provides information pertaining to financial charges,
procedures to follow, explanation of results, etc.)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/securityclearances.html
(The above represents a rather full explanation of the U.S. Government's concept of security
clearance as well as its adjudication standards/requirements and levels for clearances)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspqfaq.html
(The above includes a collection of "frequently asked questions" that have been asked of
 Dr. Stone, during the past couple of years, as related to the PSPQ)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/increasesuccesschances.html
(The above involves a number of occupational or employment advantages than can be
associated with  having 'taken' trhe PSSPQ and making use of its results)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/governmentdisliketest.html
(The above describes a history (mainly,during the late 1980s) how how psychology and
security management, within a number of U.S. Government intelligence agencies/organizations,
attempted to stop the development and subsequent existence of the PSSPQ)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/securityclearanceswaiting. html
(The above actually is a blatant advertisement invitation designed for individuals who will be,
or are already, waiting for completion of the processing/adjudication procedures regarding
security clearance status for themselves)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspquseclearancewithdrawalcases.html
(The above describes use of the PSSPQ in psychological evaluations, as requested by
 involved individuals' defense attorneys, in cases where the Government was withdrawing
previously granted security clearances)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspquseforensiccases.html
(The above is a copy of any already published journal article that describes use of the
PSSPQ in psychological evaluations of indiviudals criminally charged)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspqreliabilityvalidity.html
(The above was especially written for psychologists and other behavioral scientists types
who have a strong background in psychometrics and psychological statistics.  This work
presents, in detail, how test reliability and validity were estimated for this test.  For those
who might be truly interested in using the PSSPQ, they are strongly urged to read this 
presentation.)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspqcertificate.html
This set of pages details Dr. Stone's recent decision to 'award' an
attractive certificate that communicates that it's recipient 'passed' the
PSSPQ at a 'high level' and that this inplies that the recipient can be
expected to be highly successful regarding the granting of high-level
security clearance status.
 

The following listed links may be of special interest to directors of human 
resources or security offices; they introduce a new 'integrity' test that has
a lesser number of many of the problems now recognized as being associated
with most of these type tests that have beeen widely sold in the 1980s and
1990s, and to a diminished degree in the past couple of years.  In addition,
this new test (for trustworthiness) has an interesting validity criterion 
basis not shared by any of its competitor tests.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/trustworthinesstests.html
(The above was primarily written to introduce another 'trustworthiness' measuring test,
the Phobity/Honesty Inventory [PHI].  The PHI was actually construsted from the 
PSSPQ but for a quite different purpose and was validated quite differently.  The PHI 
can be used in fashions rather similar to how many so-called integrity tests are used.)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/phitest.html
(Thee listing immediately above is almost exclusively devoted to description of the PHI
test  For anyone interested in learning about a new, improved-generation integrity test, it is
suggested that the reader carefully study the presentations given by both above Web
listings.)
 

   No chief/head/director of a commercial or governmental organizatiion, who might have an educational background that might heavily involve courses in psychology, especially those involved with psychological testing, would want to use a newly introduced psychological test without some careful study of its 'test manual.'  Due to commercial protection justifications, the Manual: Personnel Security Standards Psychological Questionnaire (PSSPQ)  is considered as containing protected proprietary information, and as such, is not normally available for perusal or study by individuals who have been administered (or are planning to be administered) the PSSPQ.  Frankly speaking, such individuals have no business at all being given access to such test construction/development statistical data and matters.  However, any commercial or governmental organization that might be interested in  potential use of the PSSPQ, on some type of contractual basis, and who might have a psychometrically-trained management person in some major leadership position in the organization, would be, under controlled conditions, be given access to the protected and limited-access PSSPQ Manual.

     The controlled conditions, mentioned just above, would involve several considertions.  One being that Dr. Stone would be present when an organization's psychometrically trained management person  inspecting and studying the manual.  In fact, in such a situation, Dr. Stone would personally assist and guide the management person through the very extensive complex technical  manual.  The PSSPQ Manual, as presently written with 46 pages, contains the following listed subject/topic headings.

     Introduction
     Scoring the PSSPQ
     Interpretation of PSSPQ Scales Scores
     Uses of the PSSPQ
     Development and Standardization of the PSSPQ
          Determination of Reliabilities
          Determination of Validities
     References
     Appendix A:  Product available based upon the results of an individual having
                          responded to the PSSPQ
     Appendix B:  Separate factor analyses for each of the ten different PSSPQ scales
     Appendix C:  Recently revised regulations regarding Department of Defense
                          personnel security program
     Appendix D:  Different response patterns for PSSPQ items according to gender
                           membership
     Appendix E:  Composition and statistics for PSSPQ scales
     Appendix F:  MMPI scoring information pertaining to the studied contractor
                          employee normative sample (N = 102)
     Appendix G:  Special scoring instructions for the PSSPQ Item #37 
     Appendix H:  Additional interpretation of deviant scores on Scale K (Security
                          Violations Scale)

     Inspection of the above described manual's contents headings, strongly hints at or suggests the extensive developmental work that went into the construction and reliability/validity study of the PSSPQ testing instrument.  Dr. Stone, over the past decade and a half, has explained and shared the PSSPQ Manual with a small selected number of psychologists (all holding doctorates in either clinical or industrial/organizational psychology).  In fact, several of these psychologists would easily be regarded  as major, internationally well-known leaders in their fields.  All have communicationed their being favorably impressed with the high quality of Dr. Stone's test construction/development strategies and the completeness of his reliability/validity determinations research.  The PSSPQ test manual greatly exceeds the minimum psychometric requirements that have been prescribed, within the professiional field of psychology, for test manuals.  However, as stated in one of the prior paragraphs, this manual is considered as containing a great deal of proprietary information that directly pretains to the PSSPQ as a commercial value entity.  Any sharing of this information, with human resources offices' management, will involve industrial or commercial type security agreements and requirements.