This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by JOHNSON, D. L. Articles by GORDON, B. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Temporal Consistency of the Meyer-Megargee Inmate Typology

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Staff Training Academy, Glynco, Georgia

JAMES G. SIMMONS

Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland, Kentucky

B. CARL GORDON

Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland, Kentucky

An initial sample of n = 316 MMPI profiles, produced by inmates at a Security Level III Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, were subjected to the classification rules delineated by Megargee and Bohn (1979). Only 22 of these 316 profiles failed to meet the criteria for inclusion in at least one of the 10 Myer-Megargee types. The resultant 294 classifiable profiles (93%) were uniquely classified using only minimal (Set I) rules in combination with the accessory (Set II) rules provided by Megargee and Bohn (1979). Such a uniquely classifiable sample was intentionally selected for a potential bias towards stability. A final sample of n = 85 inmates were voluntarily retested (median test-retest interval = 9.78 months) and were classified. Only 16 of 85 inmates retained their original type designation upon retesting. On a subset of the overall sample (median test-retest = 3.15 months) only one of 14 profiles remained unchanged. These results both parallel and extend the data presented by Simmons, Johnson, Gouvier, and Muzyczka (1981) indicating marked instability sf the Myer-Megargee inmate typology. Thus, further data are amassed that question the efficacy of the Myer-Megargee typology for correctional decision-making.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 3, 263-268 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854883010003003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Rossi and H. Sloore Cross-Cultural Reliability and Generality of the Megargee Offender Classification System Criminal Justice and Behavior, June 1, 2008; 35(6): 725 - 740. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. N. CARMIN, F. H. WALLBROWN, R. L. OWNBY, and R. W. BARNETT A Factor Analysis of the MMPI in an Offender Population Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 1989; 16(4): 486 - 494. [Abstract]

				K. N. WRIGHT The Relationship of Risk, Needs, and Personality Classification Systems and Prison Adjustment Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 1988; 15(4): 454 - 471. [Abstract]

				L. D. ZAGER The MMPI-Based Criminal Classification System: A Review, Current Status, and Future Directions Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1988; 15(1): 39 - 57. [Abstract]

				C. F. JESNESS The Jesness Inventory Classification System Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1988; 15(1): 78 - 91. [Abstract]

				T. D. KENNEDY Trends in Inmate Classification: A Status Report of Two Computerized Psychometric Approaches Criminal Justice and Behavior, June 1, 1986; 13(2): 165 - 184. [Abstract]