The MMPI as a primary differentiator and predictor of behavior in prison: A methodological critique and review of the recent literature.

Gearing, Milton L.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.5.929

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inter-group differences at scales F and K were significant (p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). The very high score of 81.52 at scale F, which is not uncommon (Shea, 1993) and can be acceptable in correctional settings (Butcher, 1990;Gearing, 1979), has five possible explanations according to Greene, Brown, and PAR Staff (1990): (1) failure to understand test items;…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

MMPI inmate profiles: suicide completers, suicide attempters, and non‐suicidal controls

Daigle

2004

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) were compared for three groups of male inmates in federal penitentiaries: 47 suicide completers, 43 suicide attempters and, 123 non-suicidal controls. Analyses show that the groups differed on all 10 clinical scales and on at least 8 after Bonferroni correction. Attempters obtained the highest scores on 4 of 8 scales; they also posted the highest scores on 3 others, but differences were significant only against non-suicidal controls. Completers posted the highest score on only one scale (Mf), but the difference was significant only against non-suicidal controls. All told, completers proved more similar to non-suicidal controls than to attempters. Regarding profiles, completers are more strongly correlated with non-suicidal controls (r=0.95) than with attempters (r=0.86); non-suicidal controls are less strongly correlated with attempters (r=0.88). The fact that attempters seem more pathological than the others can mislead clinicians screening for suicide risk.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

MMPI inmate profiles: suicide completers, suicide attempters, and non‐suicidal controls

Daigle

2004

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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. However, because these findings were discovered by post hoc analyses, there is a probability of chance capitalization (Sliger, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rossi

Sloore

2008

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cross-cultural reliability and generality of the offender classification system developed by E. I. Megargee et al. was examined. A hierarchical cluster analytic approach was used to identify Megargee's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 based types in a sample of Belgian male federal prisoners ( N = 1,636). Six types (i.e., Able, Charlie, Delta, Easy, How, and Item) were clearly replicated, albeit with variable reliability in terms of goodness-of-fit. Types Baker, Foxtrot, George, and Jupiter were not supported. Instead, another meaningful MMPI-2 type was identified, labelled 4-6, because Scales 4 and 6 were the two highest scales with a T score of 65 or higher. Cross-national cluster analytic research is necessary to further examine the cross-cultural reliability and generality of the types identified in the current study.

show abstract

“…The MMPI scales appear to be the most frequently studied in this regard. A review of this rather massive body of research, however, reaches the conclusion that the MMPI scales have produced mostly inconsistent and inconclusive results (see Gearing, 1979). One apparent disagreement with • Gearing's conclusions, however, regards the scales used to measure psychopathic tendencies, such as the Socialization (So) scale of the California Personality Inventory and Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI.…”

Section: Prison Adjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Determinants of the Prison Experience

Voorhis

1993

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article applies the tec.~nology of psychological classification to explore the effects of personality characteristics on prison adjustments and experiences. Bivariate and multivariate analysis assess the comparative effects offour personality types (committed criminal, neurotic, situational, and character disordered) on official disciplinary infractions, staff ratings of interpersonal behaviors, and self-reports of • stress, aggressive behaviors, nonviolent infractions, and victimizations. The effects of other predictors, including age, race, marital status, employment status, prior prison time, prior prison revocations, and sentence length are also considered. Results indicate that inmates who were diagnosed as character disordered and those who had extensive prior prison experienceiiwere more likely than others to have been cited for prison infractions. Young, White inmates and those who had never been revoked during prior sentences were more likely to report victimizing experiences. Inmates most likely to score high on the stress measure were White and neurotic anxiolls, whereas character-disordered inmates scored atypically low. Finally, older, White, situational inmates were viewed most favorably as staff rated the quality of their interpersonal relationships with other inmates. Over 30 years ago, in hls extensive review of the criminological literature, George VoId (1958) observed that personality and other psychological characteristics contribute very little to our understanding of the etiology of crime. Most studies, according to VoId, had found that the personality and psychological characteristics of offender populations were similar to those observed in nonoffender populations; simply put, psychological attributes did not sufficiently differentiate offenders from non-offenders. For the next four decades, other reviews offered similarly terse and narrow assertions (e.g., Schuessler & Cressey, 1950; Tennenbaum, 1977). Indeed, Data for this project were obtained through a. grant awarded to' too University of Cincinnati

show abstract

The MMPI as a primary differentiator and predictor of behavior in prison: A methodological critique and review of the recent literature.

Cited by 45 publications

References 96 publications

MMPI inmate profiles: suicide completers, suicide attempters, and non‐suicidal controls

MMPI inmate profiles: suicide completers, suicide attempters, and non‐suicidal controls

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

Psychological Determinants of the Prison Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About