Patricia VanVoorhis is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.

"The prison population is growing dramatically, and, if administrators are going to try to accomplish anything beyond mere warehousing of inmates, they could use the information that this book provides. The study shows that the type of classification system needed may vary with the types of inmates and the organizational structures of the institutions. It also shows that a less complex classification model can be as accurate as a more elaborate model. Thus, efficiency of administration can be increased without sacrificing accuracy." — Peter C. Kratcoski, Chairman, Department of Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University

• Acknowledgments 1. Introduction Research Questions Implications Research Setting and Design OverviewDescription of the Five Classification SystemsAdministrative Context of Internal ClassificationOrganization of the book 2. Descriptions of the Five Classification System s Empirical Typologies Megargee's MMPI-Based TypologyQuay's Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) Theoretical Typologies Interpersonal Maturity LevelJesness Inventory I-level SystemConceptual Level Discussion 3. Previous Research Methodology of Classification and PredictionPsychological Classification in Corrections ReliabilityConstruct ValidityPredictive Validity and Institutional Adjustment Discussion 4. Methodology Sample SelectionData Collection ProcessAvailability of DataMeasure of Research Variables Social, Demographic, and Criminal HistoryInterview Background (Content) ItemsClassification VariablesFollow-up Variables Data Analysis Plan 5. Description of the Samples Social and Democratic Background CharacteristicsPrior Record Background CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the Conviction OffenseDiagnostic and Classification DistributionsSummary 6. Construct Validity Test ProceduresResults of Bivariate Analyses SituationalImmature DependentNeuroticManipulativeCommitted CriminalCognitive Developmental Results of Factor AnalysesSummary and Discussion 7. Prediction of Disciplinary-Related Prison Outcomes Summary of the FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Discussion The Importance of Criterion MeasuresSpecific Constructs 8. Psychological Correlates of Treatment-Related Outcomes Summary of FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' Attitudes toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Discussion 9. Summary and Discussion of Research Goals Limitations of the Study ReliabilityIndependence of Some MeasuresData Collection Difficulties for Staff Assessment MeasuresLimited Number of Subjects Research Issues What does the comparison among systems show us about the number of types that are needed to classify these populations in an optimal manner according to psychological criteria?What types of test assessment procedures are most efficient and most useful in these settings?Are there important differences between institutional settings that must be considered in using psychological classification systems? Classification Profiles Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS)Megargee MMPI-Based TypologyConceptual LevelJesness Inventory (I-level)I-level (Interview Method) 10. Policy and Research Implications Treatment and Management ImplicationsDirectors for Future ResearchImplications for Correctional Research Appendices Appendix A. Background Data Collection Form (PSR)Appendix B. I-level InterviewAppendix C. Follow-up SurveyAppendix D. Items Composing Penitentiary Follow-up ScalesAppendix E. Items Composing Prison Camp Follow-up Scales Notes References Index

Patricia VanVoorhis is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.

"The prison population is growing dramatically, and, if administrators are going to try to accomplish anything beyond mere warehousing of inmates, they could use the information that this book provides. The study shows that the type of classification system needed may vary with the types of inmates and the organizational structures of the institutions. It also shows that a less complex classification model can be as accurate as a more elaborate model. Thus, efficiency of administration can be increased without sacrificing accuracy." — Peter C. Kratcoski, Chairman, Department of Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University

• Acknowledgments 1. Introduction Research Questions Implications Research Setting and Design OverviewDescription of the Five Classification SystemsAdministrative Context of Internal ClassificationOrganization of the book 2. Descriptions of the Five Classification System s Empirical Typologies Megargee's MMPI-Based TypologyQuay's Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) Theoretical Typologies Interpersonal Maturity LevelJesness Inventory I-level SystemConceptual Level Discussion 3. Previous Research Methodology of Classification and PredictionPsychological Classification in Corrections ReliabilityConstruct ValidityPredictive Validity and Institutional Adjustment Discussion 4. Methodology Sample SelectionData Collection ProcessAvailability of DataMeasure of Research Variables Social, Demographic, and Criminal HistoryInterview Background (Content) ItemsClassification VariablesFollow-up Variables Data Analysis Plan 5. Description of the Samples Social and Democratic Background CharacteristicsPrior Record Background CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the Conviction OffenseDiagnostic and Classification DistributionsSummary 6. Construct Validity Test ProceduresResults of Bivariate Analyses SituationalImmature DependentNeuroticManipulativeCommitted CriminalCognitive Developmental Results of Factor AnalysesSummary and Discussion 7. Prediction of Disciplinary-Related Prison Outcomes Summary of the FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Discussion The Importance of Criterion MeasuresSpecific Constructs 8. Psychological Correlates of Treatment-Related Outcomes Summary of FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' Attitudes toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Discussion 9. Summary and Discussion of Research Goals Limitations of the Study ReliabilityIndependence of Some MeasuresData Collection Difficulties for Staff Assessment MeasuresLimited Number of Subjects Research Issues What does the comparison among systems show us about the number of types that are needed to classify these populations in an optimal manner according to psychological criteria?What types of test assessment procedures are most efficient and most useful in these settings?Are there important differences between institutional settings that must be considered in using psychological classification systems? Classification Profiles Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS)Megargee MMPI-Based TypologyConceptual LevelJesness Inventory (I-level)I-level (Interview Method) 10. Policy and Research Implications Treatment and Management ImplicationsDirectors for Future ResearchImplications for Correctional Research Appendices Appendix A. Background Data Collection Form (PSR)Appendix B. I-level InterviewAppendix C. Follow-up SurveyAppendix D. Items Composing Penitentiary Follow-up ScalesAppendix E. Items Composing Prison Camp Follow-up Scales Notes References Index

Patricia VanVoorhis is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.

"The prison population is growing dramatically, and, if administrators are going to try to accomplish anything beyond mere warehousing of inmates, they could use the information that this book provides. The study shows that the type of classification system needed may vary with the types of inmates and the organizational structures of the institutions. It also shows that a less complex classification model can be as accurate as a more elaborate model. Thus, efficiency of administration can be increased without sacrificing accuracy." — Peter C. Kratcoski, Chairman, Department of Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University

• Acknowledgments 1. Introduction Research Questions Implications Research Setting and Design OverviewDescription of the Five Classification SystemsAdministrative Context of Internal ClassificationOrganization of the book 2. Descriptions of the Five Classification System s Empirical Typologies Megargee's MMPI-Based TypologyQuay's Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) Theoretical Typologies Interpersonal Maturity LevelJesness Inventory I-level SystemConceptual Level Discussion 3. Previous Research Methodology of Classification and PredictionPsychological Classification in Corrections ReliabilityConstruct ValidityPredictive Validity and Institutional Adjustment Discussion 4. Methodology Sample SelectionData Collection ProcessAvailability of DataMeasure of Research Variables Social, Demographic, and Criminal HistoryInterview Background (Content) ItemsClassification VariablesFollow-up Variables Data Analysis Plan 5. Description of the Samples Social and Democratic Background CharacteristicsPrior Record Background CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the Conviction OffenseDiagnostic and Classification DistributionsSummary 6. Construct Validity Test ProceduresResults of Bivariate Analyses SituationalImmature DependentNeuroticManipulativeCommitted CriminalCognitive Developmental Results of Factor AnalysesSummary and Discussion 7. Prediction of Disciplinary-Related Prison Outcomes Summary of the FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Officially Recorded Disciplinary InfractionsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Reported Disciplinary ProblemsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings of Disciplinary Problems Discussion The Importance of Criterion MeasuresSpecific Constructs 8. Psychological Correlates of Treatment-Related Outcomes Summary of FindingsPenitentiary The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' Attitudes toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Prison Camp The Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' NeedsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Interview-Based Measures of Inmates' toward Treatment and IncarcerationThe Effects of the Classification Types on Self-Report Indices of Stress and Interaction PatternsThe Effects of the Classification Types on Staff Ratings Discussion 9. Summary and Discussion of Research Goals Limitations of the Study ReliabilityIndependence of Some MeasuresData Collection Difficulties for Staff Assessment MeasuresLimited Number of Subjects Research Issues What does the comparison among systems show us about the number of types that are needed to classify these populations in an optimal manner according to psychological criteria?What types of test assessment procedures are most efficient and most useful in these settings?Are there important differences between institutional settings that must be considered in using psychological classification systems? Classification Profiles Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS)Megargee MMPI-Based TypologyConceptual LevelJesness Inventory (I-level)I-level (Interview Method) 10. Policy and Research Implications Treatment and Management ImplicationsDirectors for Future ResearchImplications for Correctional Research Appendices Appendix A. Background Data Collection Form (PSR)Appendix B. I-level InterviewAppendix C. Follow-up SurveyAppendix D. Items Composing Penitentiary Follow-up ScalesAppendix E. Items Composing Prison Camp Follow-up Scales Notes References Index