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

Abstract

The use of interpersonal maturity level (I-level) classification has been limited by the unavailabilty of an objective, convenient, and quick method for arriving at the classification. This study examined the validity of a hand-scorable, mechanical procedure for deriving I-level subtypes with a sample of serious delinquents. The system uses T scores on nine empirically developed subtype scales based on item analysis of responses to the Jesness Inventory. The sample comprised 1,131 delinquents tested in 1966-1976 and followed for 10 years. Results showed that 65% of the youths received a single classification, 34% a multiple (dual) classification, and 1% were unclassifiable. Analysis of variance indicated that the subtypes differed across a variety of demographic, psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral measures. Long-term criminality was also related to subtype. Regression analyses indicated that the differential responses and characteristics of the subtypes were not simply a function of differences in age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or aptitude.This report presents data on the validity of the Jesness Inventory I-Level Classification System as revised for hand-scoring. The Sequential I-Level Classification Manual (Jesness, 1974) included information on that system's concurrent, construct, convergent, and predictive validity, but it was important to make sure that in the process of simplifying the scoring we had not lowered the classification's validity.Because some confusion may result from the publication of yet another interpersonal maturity level or integration level (I-level) classification procedure, a brief recapitulation of the major milestones preceding the devel-The revised system for deriving I-level subtypes was developed through the combined efforts of the American Justice Institute and the California Youth Authority.

Anxiety, Antisocial Behavior, and Heart Rate Regulation in Adolescent Males

“…In contrast to the findings in pathologically disinhibited subjects, Kagan and colleagues (Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987, 1988 found that children characterized by behavioral inhibition and shyness demonstrated higher heart rate than their (nonpathological) less in- 458 E,MEZZACAPPA et al hibited counterparts. Garralda, Connell, and Taylor (1991), found that children with emotional disturbances demonstrated hyper-responsiveness of heart rate to aversive consequences during mental tasks, when compared with conduct-disordered children and nonclinical controls.…”

“…. 1986Jesness & Wedge. 1984Martin, 1981), Data from mother and teacher reports on the Social Behavior Questionnaire were available at 6,9.…”

“…In one of the few examples where heart rate-behavior relationships in children were explored using spectral analytic methods to assess the heart rate variability, Kagan et al (1987Kagan et al ( . 1988) noted that behaviorally inhibited children with higher heart rates, when exposed to the stress of cognitive tasks, showed greater shifts in the distribution ofthe heart rate variability towards lowerfrequency regions of the power spectrum, where sympathetic influences are active.…”

Role-Taking and Recidivism: A Test of Differential Social Control Theory

“…That is, the Jesness Inventory, employed in this dissertation, was designed to tap "… the generalized disposition to resolve problems of social and personal adjustment in ways ordinarily regarded as showing a disregard for social customs or rules" (Jesness, 1969: 45). Further, the Jesness Inventory has been found to be successful in predicting offending among juveniles as well as adults (Caldwell, Silvermand & Lefforge, 2004;Jesness, 1986;Jesness & Roberts, 1983;Pinsoneault, 1999;Posey, 1988) and to be associated with recidivism (Jesness 1983;Jesness & Wedge, 1984). The Anti-Social Attitudes subscale of the Jesness Inventory contains 30 true/false items (e.g., "When you're in trouble, it's best to keep quiet about it") and six of the 30 items displayed substandard item-to-total correlations (these six items are italicized in Table 2).…”

Classification procedures for differential treatment

“…In the application of I-levels a personality test was developed by Jesness (1966) as an alternative to A detailed investigation was made of judgements on each criterion used in arriving at the characteristics as weighted scale scores which are in common, but also individual characteristics including idiosyncratic characteristics of the normative sample. It was found, for example, that the level of agreement using weighted scale scores from the prediction programme (overall 11.9 per cent, with 3 I per cent by I-level and 25.3 per cent by I-type) was not as satisfactory as the unweighted scores on three Jesness subscales which were found to discriminate significantly between treatment groups (overall 31.0 per cent, comprising social anxiety scale 69 per cent by I-type, and value orientation scale 66.7 per cent and immaturity scale 64.3 per cent by I-level).…”