Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988

This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary
and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and
July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of
psychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The
classification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity
Level (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS),
Jesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's
Conceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions:
(a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of
systems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b)
What procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff
assessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without
compromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities
and differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems
and about general classification issues pertinent to this population?
and (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience?
The penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison
camp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates
and 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post
and a correlational design. At intake, project staff members
interviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal
history background data from administrative records and test scores,
and then classified the inmates by means of an I-level
diagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included
date of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of
dependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation
and social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in
the military, ability to hold a job, and residential
stability. Criminal history data provided include age at first
nontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences,
alcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current
offense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender
involvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity
required complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence
length. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism,
alienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety,
repression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory
and the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within
the prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary
difficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or
empathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family
and friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and
drugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the
various types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for
six months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was
required to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up
came from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary
infractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of
inmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys
collected information on inmates' participation in treatment and
educational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization
experiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive,
threatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and
friends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and
attitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings
by prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales,
according to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These
characteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities,
assertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and
staff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under
stress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to
supervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior
toward staff.