Predicting Sex Offender Institutional Adjustment and Treatment Compliance Using the Personality Assessment Inventory.

Abstract

This study examined the utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to identify prison inmates in a mandatory sex offender treatment program prone to engage in institutional misconduct. Archival PAI and institutional disciplinary data were coded for 137 inmates in treatment for an average of 1.59 years. The Antisocial Features scale predicted various forms of general and major infractions (e.g., verbal aggression), with no other scales providing any incremental validity beyond this measure. The Treatment Rejection scale was uniquely but modestly correlated (r=.14) with treatment noncompliance, even though such infractions were rare in this sample.

Interpersonal characteristics of male criminal offenders: Personality, psychopathological, and behavioral correlates.

“…Because these prison systems use highly similar disciplinary infraction classification systems (Caperton et al, 2004;Edens, Poythress, & Lilienfeld, 1999) that document aggression and other conduct of major concern to prison officials (e.g., possession of contraband, lying to staff, escape attempt), it was possible to aggregate data across these samples. Edens and Ruiz (2006), in addition to examining the total number of infractions accrued, also conducted analyses on two subcategories of infractions: (a) aggressive-defiant misconduct, which included infractions reflecting verbal aggression (e.g., oral or written threats directed toward staff) and acts of defiance (e.g., cell barricading, refusal to follow a staff order), as well as infractions involving physically violent conduct; and (b) physically aggressive misconduct, a narrower category that consisted only of infraction codes directly indicating physical acts of violence (e.g., assaulting staff, fighting with other inmates).…”

“…Edens and Ruiz (2006), in addition to examining the total number of infractions accrued, also conducted analyses on two subcategories of infractions: (a) aggressive-defiant misconduct, which included infractions reflecting verbal aggression (e.g., oral or written threats directed toward staff) and acts of defiance (e.g., cell barricading, refusal to follow a staff order), as well as infractions involving physically violent conduct; and (b) physically aggressive misconduct, a narrower category that consisted only of infraction codes directly indicating physical acts of violence (e.g., assaulting staff, fighting with other inmates). These subcategories were derived from earlier projects in which researchers had consulted with prison staff members in Florida (Edens et al, 1999) and Texas (Buffington-Vollum et al, 2002;Caperton et al, 2004) to classify each specific infraction code represented in the infraction classification manuals. A similar process was used to categorize each code used in the Washington prison system.…”

“…One subsample (n ϭ 131) originally described in Caperton et al (2004) consisted of incarcerated sex offenders participating in a mandatory treatment program who were followed at least 1 year after completing the PAI. Treatment noncompliance was operationalized by the presence/absence of a treatment noncompliance (TNC) disciplinary infraction documented in institutional records.…”

“…The mean age was 34 years (SD ϭ 9.94). A more extensive description of these samples is provided in the professional manual for the PAI-CS (Edens & Ruiz, 2005) as well as in earlier published reports (Buffington-Vollum et al, 2002;Caperton et al, 2004;Edens et al, 2001). …”

“…Both of these samples are incorporated into the normative data base for the Personality Assessment Inventory Interpretive Report for Correctional Settings (PAI-CS: Edens & Ruiz, 2005). Inmates from Texas were sexual offenders (n ϭ 246) who have been the focus of other validation research on the PAI (Buffington-Vollum, Edens, Johnson, & Johnson, 2002;Caperton, Edens, & Johnson, 2004), primarily in relation to the criterion-related validity of the Antisocial Features scale (see the Personality pathology section). The Florida prison sample (n ϭ 53) consisted of a mixed group of general population inmates and offenders with a mental disorder who had been administered the PAI as part of a more extensive study examining the relationship between psychopathic traits and institutional adjustment (Edens, Poythress, & Watkins, 2001).…”