{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary\r\nand prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and\r\nJuly 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of\r\npsychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The\r\nclassification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity\r\nLevel (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS),\r\nJesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's\r\nConceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions:\r\n(a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of\r\nsystems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b)\r\nWhat procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff\r\nassessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without\r\ncompromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities\r\nand differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems\r\nand about general classification issues pertinent to this population?\r\nand (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience?\r\nThe penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison\r\ncamp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates\r\nand 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post\r\nand a correlational design. At intake, project staff members\r\ninterviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal\r\nhistory background data from administrative records and test scores,\r\nand then classified the inmates by means of an I-level\r\ndiagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included\r\ndate of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of\r\ndependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation\r\nand social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in\r\nthe military, ability to hold a job, and residential\r\nstability. Criminal history data provided include age at first\r\nnontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences,\r\nalcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current\r\noffense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender\r\ninvolvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity\r\nrequired complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence\r\nlength. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism,\r\nalienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety,\r\nrepression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory\r\nand the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within\r\nthe prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary\r\ndifficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or\r\nempathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family\r\nand friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and\r\ndrugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the\r\nvarious types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for\r\nsix months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was\r\nrequired to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up\r\ncame from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary\r\ninfractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of\r\ninmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys\r\ncollected information on inmates' participation in treatment and\r\neducational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization\r\nexperiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive,\r\nthreatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and\r\nfriends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and\r\nattitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings\r\nby prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales,\r\naccording to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These\r\ncharacteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities,\r\nassertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and\r\nstaff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under\r\nstress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to\r\nsupervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior\r\ntoward staff.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02370.v1", "title": "Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988"}], "identifier": "3124", "issued": "2000-08-01T00:00:00", "keyword": ["correctional facilities", "criminal histories", "demographic characteristics", "male offenders", "offender classification", "prison adjustment", "prison inmates", "psychological evaluation"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2008-04-04T09:18:38", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988"}