Temporal Consistency of the Meyer-Megargee Inmate Typology

Abstract

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.

The applicability and utility of the MMPI‐based offender classification system in a correctional mental health unit

“…Table 1 summarises the proportions reported in the literature for 21 general population samples totalling 5881 male prisoners (Baum, 1981;Carey, Garske & Ginsberg, 1986;Cassady, 1978, as cited by Zager, 1988Edinger, Reuterfors & Logue, 1982;Gearing, 1981;Howell & Geiselman, 1978, as cited by Zager, 1988Johnson, Simmons & Gordon, 1983;Megargee & Bohn with Meyer & Sink, 1979;Mrad, 1979;Nichols, 1980;Schaffer, Edwards & Pettigrew, 1981;Simmons, Johnson, Gouvier & Muzyczka, 1981;Van Voorhis, 1988;Walters, 1986;Walters, Mann, Miller, Hemphill & Chlumsky, 1988;Walters, Scrapansky & Marrlow, 1986). Table 1 summarises the proportions reported in the literature for 21 general population samples totalling 5881 male prisoners (Baum, 1981;Carey, Garske & Ginsberg, 1986;Cassady, 1978, as cited by Zager, 1988Edinger, Reuterfors & Logue, 1982;Gearing, 1981;Howell & Geiselman, 1978, as cited by Zager, 1988Johnson, Simmons & Gordon, 1983;Megargee & Bohn with Meyer & Sink, 1979;Mrad, 1979;Nichols, 1980;Schaffer, Edwards & Pettigrew, 1981;Simmons, Johnson, Gouvier & Muzyczka, 1981;Van Voorhis, 1988;Walters, 1986;Walters, Mann, Miller, Hemphill & Chlumsky, 1988;Walters, Scrapansky & Marrlow, 1986<...>…”

Cross-Cultural Reliability and Generality of the Megargee Offender Classification System

“…A further note of caution is warranted with regard to the MMPI-2 administration procedure. Research to date has questioned the temporal stability of the Megargee types, finding that classifications obtained at the start of imprisonment changed in 60% to 90% of the cases after a 4-month period (e.g., Dahlstrom et al, 1986;Johnson, Simmons, & Gordon, 1983;Simmons et al, 1981. Some studies (Dahlstrom et al, 1986;Doren & Megargee, 1980;Gearing, 1979;Nelson, 1981) point in the direction of actual changes in attitudes, personality, behavior, and so forth.…”

Validity of a revised Jesness Inventory I-Level Classification with delinquents.

“…Results were that 28% of the inmates received the same classification as they did initially. In a second study of 85 volunteer adult inmates, only 16 of 85 (19%) received the same classification after 10 months (Johnson, Simmons, & Gordon, 1983). It is likely, therefore, that even with older adolescents and adults, classification based on personality inventories will prove to be somewhat unstable.…”