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 KENNEDY, T. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Trends in Inmate Classification

A Status Report of Two Computerized Psychometric Approaches

Arizona State University

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 Unpublished concurrent- and predictive-validity studies have yielded mixed results demonstrating the problems in predicting low base-rate behaviors.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.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, 165-184 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854886013002003


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Kellar and H.-M. Wang Inmate Assaults in Texas County Jails The Prison Journal, December 1, 2005; 85(4): 515 - 534. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Cunningham, J. R. Sorensen, and T. J. Reidy An Actuarial Model for Assessment of Prison Violence Risk Among Maximum Security Inmates Assessment, March 1, 2005; 12(1): 40 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Cunningham and T. J. Reidy Violence Risk Assessment at Federal Capital Sentencing: Individualization, Generalization, Relevance, and Scientific Standards Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2002; 29(5): 512 - 537. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. J. REIDY, M. D. CUNNINGHAM, and J. R. SORENSEN From Death to Life: Prison Behavior of Former Death Row Inmates in Indiana Criminal Justice and Behavior, February 1, 2001; 28(1): 62 - 82. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. CUNNINGHAM and T. J. REIDY Don't Confuse me with the Facts: Common Errors in Violence Risk Assessment at Capital Sentencing Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1999; 26(1): 20 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. PROCTOR Evaluating a Modified Version of the Federal Prison System's Inmate Classification Model: An Assessment of Objectivity and Predictive Validity Criminal Justice and Behavior, June 1, 1994; 21(2): 256 - 272. [Abstract]