Development of The Services Matching Instrument:
A Measure to Match Inmates
to Correctional and Mental Health Services
by
Brieann McDaniel
AN HONORS THESIS
for the
HONORS COLLEGE
Submitted to the
Honors College
at Texas Tech University
partial fulfillment of the
requirement for
the degree designation of
HIGHEST HONORS
MAY 2015
Approved by:
_______________________________________________
Dr. Robert Morgan, Department of Psychological Sciences
____________
Date
_______________________________________________
Dr. Kelly Cukrowicz, Department of Psychological Sciences
____________
Date
_______________________________________________
Dr. Keira Williams, Honors College
____________
Date
_______________________________________________
Dr. Michael San Francisco, Honors College
____________
Date
The author approves the photocopying of this document for educational purposes.
ii
Abstract
Current research has explored the interface of mental illness and criminality as
well as the interactions between these two constructs. The purpose of this study was to
conduct an initial examination of items and the internal consistency of clinical scales for
a measure designed to assess the dual constructs of mental illness and criminality. The
Services Matching Instrument (SMI), which is designed to assess traumatic history,
negative affect, psychiatric symptoms, criminalness, social functioning, social
networking, substance abuse and antisocial attitudes and associates, was administered to
66 adult male residents from the Lubbock County Court and Residential Treatment
Center. Participants had a mean age of 29 years, were predominately Caucasian (60.7%),
and half were convicted of drug and alcohol offense (e.g., driving while intoxicated,
possession). The original measure consisted of 197-items and after analysis to identify
poor items and reconfigure the measure 158-items remained. The remaining items all
exhibit proper internal consistency and meet requirements for inclusion. The SMI can be
used in forensic and correctional settings to increase the efficiency of intake procedures
and effectively identify offender needs.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Robert Morgan for providing me with continuous
encouragement, support, guidance and mentorship during the course of this project. I am
extremely thankful to him for providing me with this experience, and sharing his research
and professional expertise. My undergraduate career would not have been complete
without the knowledge I gained as a research assistant in his Forensic and Correctional
lab, and the leadership he provided through these years.
I would also like to thank Dr. Keira Williams for her assistance with edits and
formatting as well as her constant support and direction along the way.
Finally, this project would not have been possible without the encouragement
from my friends and family.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………v
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1
METHOD………………………………………………………………………….........6
RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………….9
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………...11
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………...13
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………...19
APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………………………...21
REFRENCES CITED………………………….………………………………………..22
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1…………………………………………………………………………….9
1
Introduction
In the past few decades, the United States prison population has steadily increased
(Thompson, 2010). In 2011, The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, published by
the U.S Department of Justice, reported that over six million adults made up the
estimated correctional population, including those on probation, parole, and those
incarcerated in prison or jail. With an increase in the overall number of individuals
incarcerated, today there are more people with mental illness represented in the criminal
justice system than ever before. This has been attributed to many different factors,
including deinstitutionalization, or the shift from institutional care for the mentally ill to
community based care (Lamb & Weinberger, 1998), which in turn left many mentally ill
individuals on the streets. This argument is supported by data showing that in the ten-year
span between 1968 and 1978, state mental health populations declined by approximately
64%, and prison populations in turn increased by 65% (Steadman et al. 1984).
This shift eventually led to an overrepresentation of persons with mental illness
(PMI) in the criminal justice system (Teplin 1990, Prins 2014). This trend continued, and
in 1999, 16% of inmates in state jail facilities identified as mentally ill. By 2006, over
half of state and federal prison inmates reported experiencing mental health problems
consistent with symptom criteria in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM-IV; Ditton 1999, James & Glaze 2006). A study conducted by Steven
Raphael and Michael Stoll noted that the average number of offenders with mental illness
far exceeds the number of patients receiving treatment in inpatient mental health facilities
(Raphael & Stoll 2013). With recent studies estimating that 10-15% of offenders suffer
from a diagnosed mental illness, a total of 600,000 to 900,000 mentally ill individuals are
2
currently represented in the criminal justice system (Roskes, 1999). Notably, persons
with mental illness are three times more likely to end up incarcerated than they are to end
up in a psychiatric facility (Abramsky & Fellner, 2003).
When treating PMI within the criminal justice system, it is important to consider
both the individual’s criminogenic risk factors and mental illness together, as these will
need to be treated simultaneously in order to be effective. Morgan et al. (2010) studied
the prevalence of criminal thinking patterns in mentally ill offenders and found that 66%
of mentally ill offenders had views aligning with that of a criminal lifestyle, including
aspects such as impulsivity, hostility, and emotionality. These results were consistent
with those of offenders without mental illness, suggesting that not only are these
individuals mentally ill, they also experience aspects of criminality (Morgan et al., 2010).
Similarly, Wolff and colleagues (2013) found that male inmates who reported having a
mental illness were more likely to have higher levels of criminogenic thinking, antisocial
attitudes, aggression, and hopelessness, all of which make successful reentry into the
community more difficult. Overall, research has found that when treating mentally ill
offenders, both aspects of criminality and mental illness must be addressed, and failure to
do so likely increases the rate of recidivism (Wolff et al., 2013).
Approaches for assessing psychopathology have been very well developed, and
various measures have been empirically tested in correctional samples. Examples of
frequently used measures include the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMIIII; Millon, 1994), the Symptoms Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90; Derogatis, 1994), the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, 2001), and the
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1996). The MCMI-III is a 175-item,
3
true-false self-report measure designed to assess eleven clinical personality patterns, three
severe personality pathology scales, seven clinical syndrome scales, and three severe
syndrome scales. The measure also includes three validity scales that help to identify
malingering (Craig, 2013). The SCL-90 is a 90-question, self-report measure that
assesses nine primary symptom dimensions and is designed to give an overview of an
individual’s mental health symptoms, including both intensity and severity (Derogatis,
1994). The MMPI-2 is a 567-question, self-report measure that evaluates a wide range of
clinical circumstances with a total of over 120 scales that cover properties such as
validity, clinical symptomology, and self-presentation (Butcher, 2001). The PAI is a 322question, self-report measure composed of 22 scales intended to screen for mental
disorders and character pathology. These 22 scales can be broken down into four validity
scales, eleven clinical scales, five treatment scales, and two interpersonal scales (Morey,
1996). Overall, these assessments provide mental health professionals with a better
understanding of both the symptomology and the psychopathology that will need to be
addressed in treatment.
Assessment of criminality, including characteristics such as antisocial behavior
and thought patterns, criminal thinking styles, and criminal attitudes, is well established
today. Examples of these assessments include the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and
Associates (MCAA; Mills, Kroner & Forth, 2002), the Psychological Inventory of
Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS; Walters, 1995), the Criminal Sentiments ScaleModified (CSS-M; Shields & Simourd, 1991), and the Measure of Offender Thinking
Styles (MOTS, Mandracchia, Morgan, Garos & Garland, 2007). The MCAA is a twopart, self-report measure that evaluates criminal associates, or having friends who are also
4
criminals, and antisocial attitudes. Part A asks the participant to identify four people with
whom the individual spends a majority of his/her time and to indicate the amount of time
he/she spends with each person. Part B consists of 46 questions that measure responses
on several subscales such as violence, entitlement, antisocial intent, and associates.
(Mills, Kroner & Fourth, 2012). The PICTS is an 80-item, self-report measure that
utilizes a four-point Likert-type scale to evaluate criminal thinking styles. The assessment
is comprised of two validity scales, eight thinking style scales, two content scales and
four factor scales. All scales were designed to assess thinking styles that support and
maintain a criminal lifestyle (Walters, 1995, 2014). The CSS-M is a 41-item, self-report
measure that evaluates criminal attitudes and contains five subscales. These subscales
include attitudes toward the law, the court, and police; tolerance for law violations; and
identification with criminal others (Shields & Simourd, 1991). Additionally, the MOTS
uses a three-scale structure to assess criminal thinking styles and includes evaluation of
control, cognitive immaturity and egocentrism (Mandracchia et al., 2007). Overall, these
measures allow correctional and mental health professionals to identify an individual’s
criminogenic needs and distinguish factors that make them more susceptible to
recidivism.
Although measures exist to identify aspects of psychopathology and criminogenic
needs independently, there is a clear need for a measure that can combine both aspects of
these important characteristics into one assessment. The purpose of the current study is to
conduct an initial examination of items and the internal consistency of clinical scales of
the Services Matching Instrument (SMI), a measure designed to help identify mental
health and offender rehabilitation services that would benefit individuals in a correctional
5
or forensic setting. Proper identification of appropriate treatment needs and service
placement has the potential to directly impact clinical practice by increasing the
efficiency of intake procedures and evaluations.
6
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of sixty-six adult males in a residential treatment center for
offenders on probation. Ten participants did not provide demographic information.
Participants had a mean age of 29 years (SD = 9.28) and were predominately Caucasian
(n = 34, 60.7%), with seventeen (30.4%) participants identifying as Hispanic, four (7.1%)
as African American, and one (1.8%) as Native American. Most participants were single
(n = 29, 52.7%), with the remainder reporting Partnered/Married (n = 16, 29.1%),
Divorced (n = 7, 12.7%), or Separated (n = 3, 5.5%) relationship statuses. One
participant did not identify his relationship status. The average duration of education was
11 years (SD = 2.08).
Nineteen (28.8%) participants reported that they had current psychiatric
diagnoses. Of these, nine (47.4%) reported a primary diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, four
(21.1%) reported Depression, three (15.8%) reported Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, two reported (10.5%) Bipolar Disorder, and one (5.3%) reported Autism.
Sixteen (28.6%) participants indicated that they had been receiving mental health services
for an average of 20 months (SD = 26.4). Sixteen (28.6%) participants also reported
receiving various psychotropic medications, with twelve taking anti-anxiety medications
(75%), two taking anti-psychotic medications (12.5%), and the remaining two receiving
other medications (12.5%). Charges leading to the current conviction varied and
included: drug/alcohol related offenses, such as driving while intoxicated and possession
(n = 28, 50%), person offenses such as theft (n = 11,19.6%) property offenses such as
burglary (n = 10,17.9%) and other offenses, such as evading arrest and credit card fraud
7
(n = 7,12.5%). The resulting mean length of probation sentence was 54 months (SD =
37.3). Participants reported a mean of 19 months (SD = 27.4) of previous incarceration
since the age of 18.
Materials
A demographic form (appendix C) was used to collect information about basic
demographic variables such as age, race, ethnicity, education, sentence length, and
current medications, as well as mental health and legal history.
The Services Matching Instrument (SMI) (appendix A) was used to identify both
aspects of mental illness and criminality. The SMI is a 197-item, self-report measure
using a true or false response style composed of a total of eight theoretically derived
clinical scales including Criminalness (23 items), Negative Affect (33 items), Psychiatric
Symptoms (28 items), Trauma (14 items), Social Functioning (49 items), Social
Networking (21 items), Antisocial Attitudes &Associates (15 items), Substance Abuse
(14 items).
Procedure
In concordance with IRB approval (appendix B), data collection took place at one
of three data collection points, including within seven days of arrival to the facility, three
months after admission to the facility, and two weeks prior to facility release. A report
was drafted of all residents by admission date, and those who met inclusionary criteria
were invited to hear about the study. In order to meet inclusionary criteria, participants
were required to be 18 years of age or older and to be able to read and write English.
Informed consent was provided and an explanation about the nature and purpose of the
study was given. Participants who declined to participate were released immediately.
8
Residents were given the SMI as a part of a larger battery of measures and participants
completed all measures within an average of 43 minutes.
9
Results
The frequency of response (true or false) for each item was examined to
determine if responses to any questions reflected over-endorsement, a principle that
suggests questions can be worded in such a way that makes participants more likely to
choose one answer over the other. A baseline of more than 80% endorsement was used,
and no questions were removed for this reason (D. Kroner, Personal Communication,
January 2015). Next, a bivariate correlation was used to measure the strength of
association, or cohesion, between the questions within each scale. Each question was
compared to other questions within their respective scales and the Pearson’s correlation
coefficient was calculated. Thirty-five questions produced a negative correlation,
revealing a weak association with other questions within the scale. These questions were
subsequently removed. The internal consistency of each scale was then assessed using
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients. The initial and final alpha coefficients are displayed in
Table 1 below.
Table 1.Internal Consistency of SMI Scales Before and After Measure Revision
Scale
Substance Abuse
Social Networking
Criminalness
Trauma
Psychiatric Symptoms
Negative Affect
Attitudes & Associates
Social Functioning
Initial Alpha Value
.796
.717
.828
.905
.891
.889
.829
.668
Final Alpha Value
.796
.862
.830
.891
.902
.920
.864
.919
Using a general rule of interpretation established by George & Mallery (2003), alpha
values of >0.9 are excellent, >0.8 are good, >0.7 are acceptable, and >0.6 are
questionable. One initial alpha coefficient was deemed questionable using this rule;
10
however, after removing questions with a negative correlation, all of the final alpha
coefficients were deemed acceptable or better based on the George & Mallery (2003)
criteria. Finally, questions were assessed for excessive length, the use of negative
wording, and the use of absolutes following guidelines for assessment item writing
outlined by Holden, Fekken & Jackson (1985). The authors wanted to ensure that all
questions were easily understood and free of misinterpretation, therefore questions that
were unclear, unspecific or unnecessarily long, as well as questions containing words
such as ‘don’t’ ‘always’ and ‘never’ were excluded. Four questions were removed using
these criteria. These procedures resulted in a 158- item Service Matching Instrument,
down from 197 items. No changes to the clinical scales were made at this stage of
instrument development.
11
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to conduct an initial examination of items and the
internal consistency of clinical scales for a measure designed to assess the dual constructs
of mental illness and criminality. Preliminary analyses were used to eliminate poorly
worded and statistically inferior items from the SMI. The SMI now consists of 158-items
(down from 197 items); no changes to the original eight clinical scales were made. The
questions maintained in the SMI have acceptable clinical scale alpha coefficients
(measure of internal consistency), meaning that all items within each scale are closely
related and aim to measure the same construct. These introductory analyses have
established the framework for further development of the SMI.
Next steps include additional data collection to allow for a factor analysis to
examine the psychometric properties of the clinical scales (Institutional Review Board
proposal under review). Specifically, we aim to examine item loadings to determine if
developed items statistically load to the theorized clinical scales – this will allow us to
determine if the original scale assignments were accurate and will confirm the strength of
the factor structure (Hinkin, 1995). Additionally, the test-retest reliability will be
examined by giving the SMI to the same respondents at two different time points.
Examining test-retest reliability will inform us of the consistency of the measure across
time, an important issue given the purpose of this measure to link offenders with clinical
services and to assess treatment progress. Next, we will examine the validity of the SMI
by administering it in conjunction with other measures of psychopathology and mental
health symptoms, criminal risk, and psychosocial functioning. The scores on these
established measures will be compared to scores on the SMI to examine criterion validity.
12
After each step, the measure will be revised in a manner suggested by the results of the
investigations.
The SMI was designed to link offenders to clinical services with particular
emphasis on aspects of criminogenic risk and psychopathology. It is hoped that this
measure can provide clinicians with one self-report measure to determine clinical service
needs to more efficiently match offenders with mental health and rehabilitation services.
Once complete it is anticipated this measure will be of clinical utility to psychologists and
other mental health professionals working in correctional agencies (jail, prison,
probation, parole) and forensic mental health units to more efficiently guide clinical
decision-making and case management strategies.
13
APPENDIX A: Services Matching Instrument
_________________
Name
________________
Identifying #
_______________
Date
Services Matching Instrument
Please respond to this questionnaire by circling (T) if the statement applies to you OR (F)
if the statement does not apply to you. There are no right or wrong answers. Please
answer all the questions.
T
F
1. I’m drunk/high often.
T
F
2. I have regular contact with family members.
T
F
3. I have problems keeping a job.
T
F
4. I have not been sleeping well.
T
F
5. I am easily startled.
T
F
6. I have cheated to get what I want.
T
F
7. I often drink too much.
T
F
8. I was beaten as a child.
T
F
9. I regularly spend time with members of my family.
T
F
10. I have problems getting along with others.
T
F
11. I am often overly optimistic.
T
F
12. People take special notice of me.
T
F
13. I had physical fights with kids at school.
T
F
14. I would keep any amount of money I found.
T
F
15. I’ve smoked Dope a lot.
T
F
16. I have a supportive wife/partner.
T
F
17. I have heard voices that tell me what to do.
T
F
18. I have been sleeping more than usual.
T
F
19. I had a physical altercation with a teacher.
T
F
20. I think a lot about bad things that have happened to me.
T
F
21. None of my friends have committed crimes.
T
F
22. I’ve used illegal drugs frequently.
T
F
14
23. I am involved in an organized league/club.
T
F
24. I have problems finding a job.
T
F
25. Sometimes I feel uneasy for no reason.
T
F
26. My house burned down when I was young.
T
F
27. I need help keeping a job.
T
F
28. I have been irritable lately.
T
F
29. I vandalized school property.
T
F
30. No one will hire me.
T
F
31. It’s none of my business, if I saw a store being robbed.
T
F
32. I often want to get high (use drugs/alcohol).
T
F
33. I saw people I cared about killed.
T
F
34. I enjoy spending time with my spouse/partner.
T
F
35. I was removed from school at least once.
T
F
36. My medication makes it hard to keep a job.
T
F
37. I sometimes hear voices in my head.
T
F
38. I saw my mom physically beaten.
T
F
39. I have bullied other people to get what I wanted.
T
F
40. When hurt I cried myself to sleep.
T
F
41. Most of my friends don’t have criminal records.
T
F
42. Drugs and alcohol have contributed to my being in trouble.
T
F
43. My symptoms interfere with work.
T
F
44. I have been severely beaten.
T
F
45. I’d like to forget my past.
T
F
46. I have family I can turn to when I’m down.
T
F
47. I feel bad today about things that happened to me in the past.
T
F
48. I watch a lot of TV.
T
F
49. I receive disability benefits.
T
F
50. I have stable housing or will when I am released.
T
F
51. I feel restless.
T`
F
52. I tend to move slowly.
T
F
53. I have had to physically assault someone.
T
F
15
54. In certain situations I would try to outrun the police.
T
F
55. I’ve had problems with drugs or alcohol.
T
F
56. I play a lot of video games.
T
F
57. I have friends that help me when I’m down.
T
F
58. People told me I suffered as a child.
T
F
59. I had no permanent place to sleep last night.
T
F
60. I will need help finding a place to live or will get help when I am released.
T
F
61. I often feel tense.
T
F
62. Sometimes I feel there is nothing I can’t do.
T
F
63. I was sexually abused as a child.
T
F
64. I’ve committed crimes when high.
T
F
65. I spend more time talking to people on the internet than in live person.
T
F
66. I can hear things others can’t.
T
F
67. I can see things other people can’t.
T
F
68. I saw my mom raped.
T
F
69. I have not had a lot of energy lately.
T
F
70. I have shoplifted.
T
F
71. I have been the victim of a sexual assault.
T
F
72. I live with my family or friends or will when I am released.
T
F
73. Any money I find in a wallet rightfully belongs to me.
T
F
74. I enjoy my friends.
T
F
75. I drink to get drunk.
T
F
76. The things I like to do are too expensive or too far away.
T
F
77. My weight has changed a lot recently.
T
F
78. I talk more than I used to.
T
F
79. I have stolen from others.
T
F
80. I have problems getting to work.
T
F
81. Teachers liked me.
T
F
82. I have used a weapon to commit a crime.
T
F
83. I have problems getting to my favorite activities.
T
F
84. My mother never said anything nice to me.
T
F
16
85. I’ve craved alcohol or drugs.
T
F
86. I have broken the law for fun.
T
F
87. I’ve been in war (military, drug, gang or other).
T
F
88. I often don’t have enough money for food, clothes, and a place to live.
T
F
89. Most of my friends I met on the internet.
T
F
90. I have been fired from many jobs.
T
F
91. I have been removed from my housing at least once.
T
F
92. I have special powers.
T
F
93. Sometimes I feel my skin moving.
T
F
94. I feel like a failure.
T
F
95. I have physically hurt others.
T
F
96. I would be open to cheating certain people.
T
F
97. When I feel bad, I want to get high/drunk.
T
F
98. I have close friends.
T
F
99. I am having trouble concentrating.
T
F
100. I worry a lot.
T
F
101. I have friends that haven’t committed crimes.
T
F
102. When I’m mad, alcohol or drugs calms me down.
T
F
103. My thoughts seem to race.
T
F
104. I know things before they happen.
T
F
105. I find it hard to make a simple decision.
T
F
106. Ignoring a store being robbed is not wrong.
T
F
107. I’ve experienced withdrawal from drugs/alcohol.
T
F
108. Things in my life are out of my control.
T
F
109. I anticipate many problems in the future.
T
F
110. It is hard for me to focus my attention.
T
F
111. I have pains the doctor can’t identify.
T
F
112. I want to work but can’t find a job.
T
F
113. I have a GED.
T
F
114. I can’t seem to hold a job.
T
F
115. I was verbally abused.
T
F
17
116. Sometimes you have to break the law to survive.
T
F
117. I often think about getting drunk or high.
T
F
118. I feel supported by my family.
T
F
119. I can taste/smell hidden things in my food.
T
F
120. I have had recent thoughts of hurting myself.
T
F
121. Not much interests me anymore.
T
F
122. I have engaged in prostitution.
T
F
123. I have resisted arrest.
T
F
124. Anyone with self-respect would rather steal than have to life off of charity.
T
F
125. I feel supported by my friends.
T
F
126. I enjoy taking risks that are fun.
T
F
127. I have been raped.
T
F
128. Sometimes other people control my thoughts.
T
F
129. I have violated the conditions of my release.
T
F
130. Working with others is hard.
T
F
131. I have friends who are not criminals
T
F
132. I feel supported by my wife/partner.
T
F
133. I have needed medication to help with mental health issues.
T
F
134. I am feeling down.
T
F
135. Other people can hear what I’m thinking.
T
F
136. I have forged a check.
T
F
137. I have ‘conned’ someone out of money, drugs, or possessions.
T
F
138. When things go wrong I have the support of my friends and family.
T
F
139. I have been in a psychiatric hospital/ward in the past.
T
F
140. I would run a scam if I could get away with it.
T
F
141. I used to have a secret hiding place I would go when scared.
T
F
142. I have been in the care of psychologist or psychiatrist.
T
F
143. If it put money in my pocket, I would take advantage of someone.
T
F
144. I don’t want to start a job at the ground level.
T
F
145. I am afraid of certain places.
T
F
146. My mood can go from happy and energetic to sad quickly.
T
F
18
147. I graduated high school.
T
F
148. I have memories of many bad things.
T
F
149. A lack of money should not stop you from getting what you want.
T
F
150. I am uneasy around groups of people.
T
F
151. I have bad panic attacks.
T
F
152. I often have problems with my work supervisor or boss.
T
F
153. I am really afraid of certain things.
T
F
154. I have been told I have a mental disorder.
T
F
155. I can’t get bad memories out of my head.
T
F
156. I have been diagnosed with a mental disorder.
T
F
157. I need medicine to think or feel right.
T
F
158. I am depressed.
T
F
19
Appendix B – IRB Approval
ADDENDUM
To: Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D.
From: Robert Morgan, Ph.D. & Katy White, M.S.
Project: 503781 – Readiness for Change, Intentional Personal Growth, and Treatment
Outcomes in a Correctional Sample
This addendum outlines three changes to be made to the research proposal, Readiness for
Change, Intentional Personal Growth, and Treatment Outcomes in a Correctional
Sample
Based on data analyses completed to date that have not demonstrated relationships
between constructs as expected, as well as the availability of a new measure we are
requesting a modification to our procedures. Specifically, we would like to eliminate the
use of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale, University of Rhode Island Change
Assessment Scale, Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and the Brief Symptom
Inventory and replace these four measures with the Services Matching Inventory which
we believe provides much of the same information covered by the four measures we have
used to date. We also believe that, given the current state of this research, changing
measures at this time will ultimately allow us to better address our research questions and
hypotheses
Please let us know if you have any concerns or objections to the aforementioned changes
to the research proposal.
20
21
Appendix C – Demographic Form
Directions: Please indicate your responses to the following items by checking the
appropriate response or completing the blank.
1. Age: __________
2. Relationship Status: _____Single _____Partnered/Married _____Separated
_____Divorced _____Widowed
3. What do you consider to be your race? _____Hispanic _____White _____African
American _____Asian _____Native American _____Other (please indicate)
_________________________________
4. How many years of school have you completed? ____________
5. What are the charge(s) you are convicted of that lead to your current conviction?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. What is the length of your sentence? ______years _______months
7. Which of the following best describes your current security classification? (Check
one)
_____Minimum _____Medium _____Maximum
_____Segregation
_____Protective Custody _____Other (indicate):__________________________
8. As an adult (since age 18), how many years have you spent incarcerated in a jail or
prison facility? _______years
9a. Are you currently receiving medications for mental health purposes?
_____yes_____no
9b. Please list all of your current mental health medications and the purpose of each.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10. How long have you been receiving mental health services (that is seeing a
psychiatrist, therapist, or counselor)? ________ years________months
11. If known, please list your current psychiatric diagnosis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
22
References
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).
MMPI-2: Manual for administration and scoring.
Craig, R. J. (2013). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III: Use in forensic settings.
In R. P. Archer, E. A. Wheeler, R. P. Archer, E. A. Wheeler (Eds.). Forensic uses
of clinical assessment instruments (2nd ed.) (pp. 175-201). New York, NY, US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Derogatis, L. R (1994) SCL-90-R administration, scoring & procedure manual II. Town,
MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Ditton, P. M. (1999). Special report: Mental health and treatment of inmates and
probationers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Gross, N. G., & Morgan, R. D. Understanding persons with mental illness who are and
are not criminal justice involved: A comparison of criminal thinking and
psychiatric symptoms. Law & Human Behavior.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., & Jackson, D. N. (1985). Structured personality test item
characteristics and validity. Journal Of Research In Personality, 19(4), 386-394.
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90007-8
James D. J., Glaze L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 213600). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Lamb, H., & Weinberger, L. (1998). Persons with mental illnesses in jails and prisons: A
review. Psychiatric Services, 49(4), 483–492.
Mandracchia, J. T., Morgan, R. D., Garos, S., & Garland, J. T. (2007). Inmate thinking
patterns: An empirical investigation. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Millon, T. (1994) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III Manual. Minneapolis, MN.
National Computer Services.
23
Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G. (2004) A New Instrument to Screen for Depression,
Hopelessness, and Suicide in incarcerated Offenders. Psychological Services.
1(1), 83-91.
Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G, & Forth, A. E. (2002) Measures of Criminal Attitudes and
Associates (MCAA) Development, Factor Structure, Reliability and Validity.
Assessment, 9(3), 240-253.
Morey, L. C. (1996). An interpretive guide to the Personality Assessment Inventory
(PAI). Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated.
Morgan, R. D., Fisher, W. H., Duan, N., Mandracchia, J. T., & Murray, D. (2010).
Prevalence of criminal thinking among state prison inmates with serious mental
illness. Law & Human Behavior, 34, 324-336.
Morgan, R. D., Flora, D. B., Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Varghese, F., & Steffan, J. S.
(2012). Treating offenders with mental illness: A research synthesis. Law and
Human Behavior,36, 37-50.
Prins, S. J. (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: a systematic
review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862-872.
Roskes, E. (2014). Offenders with mental disorders: A call to action. Psychiatric
Services, 50(12), p. 1596
Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population
of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180-194.
Simound D. J. (1997) The Criminal Sentiments Scale- Modified and Pride in
Delinquency Scale: Psychometric properties and construct validity of two
measures of criminal attitudes. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 24, 52-70.
.
Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., Duffee, B., Hartstone, E., & Robbins, P. C. (1984). The
impact of state mental hospital deinstitutionalization on United States prison
populations, 1968–1978. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(2), 474490. doi:10.2307/1143164
Steadman, H. M. (2005). Assessing the Effectiveness of Jail Diversion Programs for
Persons with Serious Mental Illness and Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders.
Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 23(2), 163-170.
Steadman, H. J., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P.C., Case, B., & Samuels, S., (2009) Prevalence
of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services. 60, 761-765.
Teplin, L. A. (1990). The Prevalence of Severe Mental Disorder Among Male Urban Jail
Detainees: Comparison with the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program.
American Journal Of Public Health, 80(6), 663-669.
24
Thompson, H. A. (2010). Why Mass Incarceration Matters: Rethinking Crisis, Decline,
and Transformation in Postwar American History. Journal Of American History,
97(3), 703-734.
Walters, G. D., (1995). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Part 1.
Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 22, 307-325.
Walters, G. D. (2014). An item response theory analysis of the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles: Comparing male and female probationers and
prisoners. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 1050-1055. doi:10.1037/pas0000014
Wolff, N., Morgan, R. D., Shi, J., Huening, J., Fisher, W. H. Thinking Styles and
Emotional States of Male and Female Prison Inmates by Mental Disorder Status.
Psychiatric Services. 62(12), 1485-1493.
Wolff, N., Frueh, C., Huening, J., Shi, J., Epperson, Morgan, R., Fisher, W., Practice
informs the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice
interventions, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 36, Issue 1,
January–February 2013, Pages 1-10
Wormithm J. S., & Andrews, D. A. (1984) Criminal Sentiments and criminal behavior: A
construct validation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Solicitor General
of Canada.