An Examination of Personality Profiles based on Psychological Assessments of Violent and Nonviolent Offenders - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 27
About This Presentation
Title:

An Examination of Personality Profiles based on Psychological Assessments of Violent and Nonviolent Offenders

Description:

An Examination of Personality Profiles based on Psychological Assessments of Violent and Nonviolent Offenders Erica Hoover, MA Doctoral Candidate – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:115
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: An Examination of Personality Profiles based on Psychological Assessments of Violent and Nonviolent Offenders


1
An Examination of Personality Profiles based on
Psychological Assessments of Violent and
Nonviolent Offenders
  • Erica Hoover, MA
  • Doctoral Candidate
  • Aldwin Domingo, PhD
    Mark Hume, PhD
  • Clinical Research Project Committee Chair
    Committee Member
  • American School of Professional Psychology at
  • Argosy University, Southern California

2
Offenders
3
Violent Offenders
4
What can be done?
  • The need to better understand these individuals
    and their behavior is great.
  • Psychologists often emphasize treatment of these
    offenders, especially when they also have a
    mental illness.
  • Gaining more information about their personality
    characteristics and behavior can help clinicians
    create beneficial intervention strategies and
    inform appropriate management of these offenders
    (Craig, Browne, Beech, Stringer, 2006).

5
Introducing My Study
  • Use psychological assessments to
  • differentiate between violent and
  • nonviolent offenders.
  • Incorporating various types of assessment into a
    complete personality structure of an individual
    can yield invaluable information.
  • Understanding an individual from many
    perspectives, such as how they think, feel, and
    interact with the world, is essential in order to
    create an integrative picture of their
    personality.

6
(No Transcript)
7
Study Methods
  • Archival data was collected from the California
    Institution for Men (CIM) in Chino California.
  • CIM is a mens prison facility that opened in
    1941 and currently holds over 5000 inmates.
  • The archival data consisted of previous testing
    batteries that have been performed on inmates
    from 2008-2012.
  • The subjects were all part of the mental health
    system at CIM and their primary clinician
    referred them to have a psychological assessment
    completed on them by a psychodiagnositc practicum
    student working at the facility.

8
  • The cognitive measure the Wechsler Adult
    Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV)
  • The objective measure the Personality Assessment
    Inventory (PAI)
  • The projective measure the Rorschach Inkblot
    test using the Rorschach Performance Assessment
    System (R-PAS) to score and interpret the
    results.

9
Type of Offender
  • Violent crimes, or crimes against persons
  • involve force or the threat of force, and are
    comprised of the following offenses
  • Murder
  • Manslaughter
  • Robbery
  • Assault
  • Sex offenses
  • Kidnapping
  • Non-violent crimes include property crimes such
    as
  • Burglary
  • Theft
  • Or drug offenses

10
Traits analyzed
11
Traits Analyzed
12
Results
  • Descriptive Statistics
  • sample size 36 subjects
  • Ages of subjects ranged from 18 to 77 years old,
    with an average age of 37.
  • 38.9 Caucasian, 30.1 African American,
    27.8 Hispanic, 2.8 Biracial
  • Completed education levels ranged from 4th grade
    to 4-year college degree, average completed
    education level of 11th grade.
  • 23 Violent Offenders, 13 Nonviolent Offenders

13
Results
  • 37 personality factors across three assessment
    measures were statistically analyzed using a
    Binary Logistic Regression.
  • The alpha level of statistical significance was
    set at 0.05.
  • The best resulting BLR model to categorize
    between violent and nonviolent offenders involved
    the combination of

14
Results
  • Variables in the BLR equation for this model
  • The resulting BLR regression equation is
  • (-0.123)(PRI)(-0.128)(DOM)(-0.06)(PHR)22.7

Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation Variables in the Equation
    B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95 C.I.for EXP(B) 95 C.I.for EXP(B)
    B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step 3 PRI -.123 .053 5.472 1 .019 .884 .797 .980
Step 3 Dominance -.128 .044 8.570 1 .003 .880 .808 .959
Step 3 PHR -.061 .031 3.869 1 .049 .941 .885 1.000
Step 3 Constant 22.700 8.263 7.546 1 .006 7219612421.431    
15
Results
  • This model correctly classified 20 of the 23
    violent offenders resulting in 87 correctly
    classified.
  • 9 of the 13 nonviolent offenders were correctly
    classified, corresponding to 69.2.
  • The model demonstrated an overall correct
    classification of 80.6.

Classification Table Classification Table Classification Table Classification Table Classification Table Classification Table
  Observed Observed Predicted Predicted Predicted
  Observed Observed Offense Offense Percentage Correct
  Observed Observed Violent Offense Non-Violent Offense Percentage Correct
Step 3 Offense Violent Offense 20 3 87.0
Step 3 Offense Non-Violent Offense 4 9 69.2
Step 3 Overall Percentage Overall Percentage     80.6
16
Results
  • Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Trait Offense Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
FSIQ Violent 83.2174 14.89038 .090
FSIQ Nonviolent 75.2308 9.28398 .090
PRI Violent 90.7391 16.42674 .080
PRI Nonviolent 81.7692 9.31087 .080
Dominance Violent 55.2609 13.03219 .022
Dominance Nonviolent 44.8462 11.59631 .022
Diffuse Shading (Y) Violent 97.8696 14.53930 .068
Diffuse Shading (Y) Nonviolent 89.7692 6.80874 .068
17
Summary of results
  • A combination of PRI, DOM, and PHR is able to
    correctly classify an offender as violent or
    nonviolent 80 of the time, and can correctly
    classify violent offenders 87 of the time.
  • The mean scores for PRI were marginally
    significantly different, violent offenders
    scores were higher.
  • The mean scores on the DOM scale were
    significantly different, violent offenders
    scores were higher.
  • The mean scores on the PHR scale were not
    statistically significantly different, (violent
    offenders M106.61, nonviolent offenders
    M101.15).
  • Adding the PHR scale to the BLR model improved
    the overall correct classification rate by 5.
  • The mean scores on the Diffuse Shading (Y) scale
    were marginally statistically significant
  • But not included in the BLR equation

18
PRI
  • Factors that may be related to an individuals
    score include
  • (Sattler Ryan, 2009)
  • Violent offenders scored higher than nonviolent
    offenders
  • M90.7
  • Nonviolent offenders M81.8
  • Larger PRI vs VCI split with violent offenders
  • VCI was 4 points lower (on average) for violent
  • 1 point lower for nonviolent

19
DOM
20
PHR
21
Diffuse Shading (Y)
22
Full Scale IQ (FSIQ)
  • (Sattler Ryan, 2009, p. 134)
  • Violent offenders M83.2
  • gt1 SD below the mean (low average)
  • Nonviolent offenders M75.2
  • Almost 2 SD below the mean (borderline)

23
Clinical Implications
  • Better understanding of violent offenders
  • Prominent features that differentiate this
    population from nonviolent offenders are related
    to interpersonal characteristics, and reasoning
    and problem solving skills
  • Prone to using nonverbal problem solving and
    reasoning
  • More dominant and controlling
  • Based on self-report
  • Problematic understanding of self and others
  • This understanding can guide treatment planning
    toward more interpersonal/social skills and
    adaptively understanding and interacting with
    others
  • especially during conflictual encounters and
    those that require healthy problem solving

24
Limitations
  • Small sample size (especially nonviolent
    offenders)
  • Generalizability
  • Only inmates within the mental health system at
    one prison
  • Not representative of general prison population
  • Inter-rater reliability
  • Tests were scored by various examiners
  • Standard validity concerns for each assessment
    measure
  • Effort, motivation, performing at optimal level,
    self-reporting, defensiveness, impression
    management, rapport with examiner,
    administration, nature of setting/environment,
    etc.

25
Conclusion
  • Comparative characteristics and styles of those
    prone to harm others directly vs other crimes in
    a small sample
  • This is preliminary research -there is much more
    we can do!
  • Gather more assessment data
  • Study how these results can affect treatment of
    violent offenders to reduce future violent crime
    and increase their likelihood of success while
    incarcerated and when released into the community

26
references
  • California Department of Corrections and
    Rehabilitation CDCR. (2012a). Adult Population
    Projections. Retrieved from the CDCR website
    http//www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_
    Information_Services_Branch/ProjeProjec/S1 2Pub.pd
    f
  • California Department of Corrections and
    Rehabilitation CDCR. (2012b). Prison Census
    Data. Retrieved from the CDCR website
    http//www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_
    Information_Services_Branch/Annual/Census/ CENSUSd
    1206.pdf
  • Coram, G. J. (1995). A Rorschach Analysis of
    Violent Murderers and Nonviolent Offenders.
    European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
    11(2), 81-88.
  • Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Beech, A.,
    Stringer, I. (2004). Personality characteristics
    associated with r econviction in sexual and
    violent offenders. The Journal of Forensic
    Psychiatry Psychology, 15(3), 532-551.
  • Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Beech, A.,
    Stringer, I. (2006). Differences in personality
    and risk characteristics in sex, violent and
    general offenders. Criminal Behaviour Mental
    Health, 16(3), 183-194.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI. (2010).
    Crime in the United States Violent Crime.
    Retrieved from the FBI website
    http//www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-
    u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent- crime

27
References
  • Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional Population in
    the United States, 2010. Retrieved from the
    Bureau of Justice Statistics website
    http//bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?typbdetailii
    d2237.
  • Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., Sabol, W. J.
    (2010). Prisoners in 2010. Retrieved from the
    Bureau of Justice Statistics website
    http//bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?typbdetailiid
    2230.
  • Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L.,
    Erard, R. E., Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach
    Performance Assessment System Administration,
    Coding, Interpretation, and Technical Manual.
    Toledo, OH Rorschach Performance Assessment
    System, LLC.
  • Morey, L. C. (2003). Essentials of PAI
    Assessment. Hoboken, NJ John Wiley Sons.
  • Polaschek, D. L. L., Reynolds, N. (2004).
    Assessment and treatment Violent offenders. In
    C. R. Hollin (Ed.), The essential handbook of
    offender assessment and treatment (pp. 201-218).
    Chichester Wiley.
  • Sattler, J. M., Ryan, J. J. (2009). Assessment
    with the WAIS-IV. La Mesa, CA Jerome M. Sattler,
    Publisher, Inc.
  • Walters, G. D. (2007). Predicting Institutional
    Adjustment With the Lifestyle Criminality
  • Screening Form and the Antisocial Features and
    Aggression Scales of the PAI. Journal of
    Personality Assessment. 88(1), 99-105.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com