DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02370
title: Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988
title: Archival Version

description: 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.
description: The research was conducted in response to a
 growing demand for sound methods for classifying prison populations in
 order to manage correctional facilities effectively and to reduce
 inmates' problem behavior. The classification systems tested were: (1)
 Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level, (2) Jesness Inventory, (3)
 Hunt's Conceptual Level, (4) Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology,
 and (5) the Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS). Although
 several classification systems had been developed, prior research had
 devoted insufficient attention to the reliability, validity, and
 utility of the systems. Moreover, most of the classifications were
 developed for juvenile correctional systems and had not been tested
 sufficiently with adult offenders. This 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?
description: This study, conducted in a federal penitentiary
 and federal prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September
 1986 and July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and
 validity of psychological classifications of adult male inmates. The
 penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison camp
 was a minimum-security one. A total of 190 camp inmates and 179
 penitentiary inmates participated. At the time of the study, inmates
 were assigned to institutions according to security criteria only and
 were not classified further within the institution. The study employed
 both a pre-post and a correlational design. At intake, project staff
 members interviewed inmates, collected 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. 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.
description: Background data collected at intake included social
 and demographic data prior to or at arrest, prior adult and juvenile
 records, current offenses, and arrest or conviction processing.
 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 of 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. 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 interviews 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.
description: Response Rates: The response rates were 76 percent for
 penitentiary inmates and 83 percent for camp inmates. Computation of
 the response rates was based on the ratio of inmates interviewed to
inmates asked to participate.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS), Megargee's
 MMPI-Based Prison Typology, Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level
(I-Level), Hunt's Conceptual Level, and the Jesness Inventory.
description: Random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988
description: Adult male inmates in the federal penitentiary and federal
prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, admitted from 1986 to 1988.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The
PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided on the ICPSR Website.