Trends in Inmate Classification

Abstract

Trends in the classification of prison inmates—readily-scored objective models and computerized psychometric profiles—are discussed in the context of a status evaluation of two psychometric approaches: the Megargee MMPI Typology for federal inmates and the Eber Diagnostic and Risk Assessment Profile for state prison inmates. Testing of youthful offenders has demonstrated that the Megargee system differentiates 10 types of inmates that vary on a broad array of variables. Cross-validation attempts with other than federal youthful offenders have yielded mixed results. Recent studies suggest that the instrument is not effective as a predictor of inmate violence or aggression during incarceration. Test-retest reliability investigations reveal a marked instability and higher than anticipated changes in group membership. The most frequent application of the typology has been in making intrafacility housing assignments. The original validation sample of 3,323 “uncontaminated” cases of Georgia state prison inmates on which the Eber system is based has not been cross-validated with other states' inmates although test results have been used in making classification decisions, institutional and program assignments, and release recommendations. Incremental validity and test-retest reliability have not been determined. Unpublished concurrent- and predictive-validity studies have yielded mixed results demonstrating the problems in predicting low base-rate behaviors. At least one state has experienced a marked reduction in the percentage of inmates initially classified to maximum security since the system's inception. Poor training and supervision of test users and organizational factors appear to detract from the system's potential usefulness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crime & Delinquency, 29, 561-576.

Baum, M. S. (1981). Effectiveness of the Megargee typology in predicting violent behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42/04H, p. 1804. (University Microfilms No. DEN81-20741)

Biegen, D. , Canter, A. , Kennedy, T. D. , McMahon, M. , & Saubier, J. (1978, June). An analysis of the inmate classification system at the Arizona State Prison. A report presented to U.S. District Judge Carl A. Muecke in the case of Harris vs. Cardwell (No. CIV-75-185-PHX-CAM).

Boggs, W. (1984, June 26). Personal communication.

Bohn, M. J., Jr. (1979). Management classification for young adult inmates. Federal Probation, 43(4), 53-59.

Bohn, M. J., Jr. (1983, June 10). Personal communication.

Booth, R. J. , & Howell, R. J. (1980). Classification of prison inmates with the MMPI: An extension and validation of the Megargee typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 407-422.

Buckingham, E. (1983, June 24). Personal communication.

Clements, C. B. (1980). Offender classification: Problems and prospects for correctional management. Prison Law Monitor, 2, 237-242.

10.

Clements, C. B. (1981). The future of offender classification: Some cautions and prospects. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 15-38.

11.

Clements, C. B. (1982). Psychological roles and issues in recent prison litigation. In J. Gunn & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Abnormal offenders, delinquency, and the criminal justice system. New York: John Wiley.

12.

Cullen, F. T. , & Gilbert, D. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.

13.

Dahlstrom, W. G. , Welsh, G. S. , & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1975). An MMPI handbook: Vol. 2. Research applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

14.

Doren, D. , Megargee, E. I. , & Schreiber, H. (1980). The MMPI criminal classification system's applicability to a juvenile population. The Differential View, 10, 42-47.

15.

Eber, H. W. (1974). Some psychometric correlates of inmate behavior. Georgia Journal of Corrections, pp. 1-14.

16.

Eber, H. W. (1978). User's manual for Psychological Resources reports. Atlanta, GA: Psychological Resources, Inc.

17.

Eber, H. W. (1981). Use of psychometric technology in prison management. American Psychologist, 36, 526-527 (Comment).

18.

Edinger, J. D. (1979). Cross-validation of the Megargee MMPI typology for prisoners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 224-232.

19.

Edinger, J. D. , Reuterfors, D. , & Logue, P. E. (1982). Cross-validation of the Megargee MMPI typology: A study of specialized inmate populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 194-203.

20.

Gearing, M. L., II . (1979). The MMPI as a primary differentiator and predictor of behavior in prison: A methodological critique and review of the recent literature. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 929-963.

21.

Hanson, R. W. , Moss, C. S. , Hosford, R. E. , & Johnson, M. E. (1983). Predicting inmates penitentiary adjustment: An assessment of four classification methods. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 293-309.

22.

Hathaway, S. R. , & McKinely, J. C. (1967). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

23.

Haven, H. (1970). The MMPI with incarcerated adult and delinquent offenders. FCI Technical and Treatment Notes. Tallahassee, FL: Federal Correctional Institute.

24.

Irion, J. (1984, June 21). Personal communication.

25.

Johnson, D. L. , Simmons, J. G. , & Gordon, B. C. (1983). Temporal consistency of the Meyer-Megargee inmate typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 263-268.

26.

Kennedy, T. D. (1982). Assessing crime policy: The effects of the 1978 criminal code revision. In T. D. Kennedy (Ed.), Crime and Justice in Arizona. Phoenix: Arizona Academy.

27.

Kennedy, T. D. (1983, June). An evaluation of the psychodiagnostic test battery (DARAP) and inmate management system (VISOR) provided by Psychological Resources. A report prepared for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

28.

Kleinsasser, D. (1984, June 21). Personal communication.

29.

Levinson, R. (1980, July). Research proposal: Internal management classification system. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

30.

Louscher, P. E. , Hosford, R. D. , & Moss, C. S. (1983). Predicting dangerous behavior in a penitentiary using the Megargee typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 269-284.

31.

McMahon, M. (1983, June 15). Personal communication.

32.

Megargee, E. I. (1977). A new classification system for criminal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 107-114.

33.

Megargee, E. I. , & Bohn, M. J., Jr. (1979). Classifying criminal offenders: A new system based on the MMPI. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

34.

Meyer, J., Jr. , & Megargee, E. I. (1977). A new classification system for criminal offenders: Initial development of the system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 115-124.

35.

Myers, M. L. (1980). Classification: An essential mechanism for the effectuation of numerous constitutional rights. Prison Law Monitor, 2, 242-245.

36.

Scheckenbach, A. F. (1980, October). Federal prison system MMPI scoring system handbook. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Western Region).

37.

Scheckenbach, A. F. (1983, June 10). Personal communication.

38.

Simmons, J. G. , Johnson, D. L. , Gouvier, W. D. , & Muzyczka, M. J. (1981). The Meyer-Megargee inmate typology: Dynamic or unstable? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 49-54.

39.

Stone, A.V.W. , & Eber, H. W. (1982, June). Research bulletin #1: Studies of a psychodiagnostic battery for prison inmates. Atlanta, GA: Psychological Resources.

40.

Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. New York: Macmillan.

41.

Toch, H. (1981). Inmate classification as a transaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 3-14.

42.

Zager, L. D. (1983). Response to Simmons and associates: Conclusions about the MMPI-based classification system's stability are premature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 310-315.