Psychological Assessment 2014, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1375-1380
© 2014 American Psychological Association 1040-3590/14/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000022
BRIEF REPORT
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Predictors of Violating Probation After Felonious Crimes Anthony M. Tarescavage
Lynn Luna-Jones
Kent State University
Capella University and Psycho Diagnostic Clinic, Akron, Ohio
Yossef S. Ben-Porath Kent State University We compared Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores of 25 individuals convicted of felonies who violated probation within 1 year of sentencing with those of 45 similarly sentenced defendants who completed probation successfully. The sample (51 males, 19 females) ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) and had 8 to 16 years of education (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1). The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), but African Americans were also represented (14.3%). Individuals in the sample were primarily convicted of mid-level felonies (F-l: 2.9%; F-2: 14.3%; F-3: 22.9%; F-4: 31.4%; F-5: 12.9%). As hypothesized, moderate to large statistically significant differences between probation completers and violators were found on several MMPI-2-RF scales, including Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction, Antisocial Behavior, Juvenile Conduct Prob lems, Substance Abuse, Aggression, Activation, and Disconstraint. Relative risk ratio analyses indicated that probationers who produced elevated scores on these scales were up to 3 times more likely to violate probation than were those with non-elevated scores. Implications of these results and limitations of our findings are discussed. Keywords: MMPI-2-RF, forensic assessment, probation failure, antisociality
Nearly five million adults in the United States were under community supervision in 2011, and approximately 25% of these offenders violated terms o f their community control before satis fying supervision requirements (M aruschak & Parks, 2012). High rates of probation violations contribute to prison overcrowding and public safety concerns (Phillips, 2007). In response, some research ers have created standardized risk assessments for use in forensic settings, such as the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; W eb ster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), whereas others have sought to identify constructs predictive o f probation violations (PVs) and,
relatedly, recidivism after experiencing the consequences o f one’s criminal behavior. In one o f the most comprehensive efforts, Gendreau, Little, and Goggin (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 131 studies and found that static risk factors, such as age, gender, race, and criminal history, as well as dynamic risk factors (i.e., criminogenic factors amenable to treatment), were both predictive o f recidivism. In particular, interpersonal conflict, socialization with other offenders, substance abuse, and antisocial behaviors were identified as primary risk factors. The construct o f antisoci ality, most frequently measured in the meta-analysis by Clinical Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate) o f the M innesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001), was one o f the most robust predictors o f recidivism. The M M PI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is an updated version of the M M PI-2 with improved psychometric features and a scale structure consistent with contemporary models o f psychopathology (Krueger & Markon, 2006; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008). The MMPI2-RF shows particular promise as a potential instrument for the evaluation of offenders under consideration for probation, as it has scales that assess some o f the previously described dynamic con structs that are predictive of recidivism, including measures of interpersonal conflict, substance abuse, and antisocial personality characteristics. The scales ju st mentioned are included in the test’s Behavioral/ Externalizing Dysfunction domain, which has a hierarchical struc-
This article was published Online First August 18, 2014. Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State Uni versity; Lynn Luna-Jones, Department of Psychology, Capella University, and Psycho Diagnostic Clinic, Akron, Ohio; Yossef S. Ben-Porath, De partment of Psychology, Kent State University. Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI-2-RF publisher; the University of Minnesota Press; and the distributor, Pearson Assessments. He receives royalties on sales of MMPI-2-RF materials and research grants from the MMPI-2-RF publisher. Portions of this study were presented at the 2014 American Psychology and Law Society Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. The authors thank Raquel Morson and Yang Liuhong for assisting with variable coding. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, 144 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242. E-mail: [email protected]
1375
1376
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
ture. At the broadest level of this domain, the Higher-Order scale Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) measures a wide array of behaviors and difficulties associated with under-controlled behavior. Restructured Clinical scale Antisocial Behavior (RC4) is a mid-level measure that has items assessing a variety of constructs directly associated with antisocial personality disorder criteria, including failure to conform to social norms and deceitfulness. This scale also has items assessing constructs associated with antisocial personality disorder, such as juvenile conduct problems, substance abuse, and familial discord. Restructured Clinical scale Hypomanic Behavior (RC9) is a mid-level measure of engagement with one’s environment, and the scale is marked by items assessing poor impulse control, aggression, and sensation-seeking. The MMPI-2-RF’s Specific Problems scales include four nar row measures that are associated with Restructured Clinical scales RC4 and RC9: Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Substance Abuse (SUB), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT). The JCP scale is a measure of a history of juvenile misconduct involving stealing, negative peer group influence, and problematic behaviors at school. The SUB scale measures problematic alcohol use, drug use, and use of prescription medications for illicit purposes. Both these scales aid interpretation of RC4. The AGG scale measures engagement in physically violent behaviors, and the ACT scale assesses excessive energy that can be associated with a manic episode at high levels. These two scales aid interpretation of RC9. Two Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales from the MMPI-2RF’s Behavioral/Externalizing domain—Aggressiveness-Revised (AGGR-r) and Disconstraint-Revised (DISC-r)—measure patho logical personality features that can be associated with antisocial personality disorder. The AGGR-r scale measures instrumentally aggressive and assertive behaviors, and the DISC-r scale assesses various manifestations of disconstrained behavior. Past research has demonstrated the utility of the MMPI-2-RF scales in the prediction of offender failure to complete a courtordered drug treatment program, as well as a batterers’ interven tion program (Mattson, Powers, Halfaker, Akeson, & Ben-Porath, 2012; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008). Mattson et al. (2012) found that MMPI-2-RF scales demonstrating associations with increased risk for failure to complete the drug program included BXD, Thought Dysfunction (THD), RC4, Ab errant Experiences (RC8), JCP, AGG, Psychoticism-Revised (PSYC-r), and DISC-r. In an investigation that included only the test’s Restructured Clinical scales, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, et al. (2008) found that RC4 and RC9 were associated with failure to complete a batterers’ intervention program and subsequent recid ivism. The purpose of the current study was to identify MMPI-2-RF predictors of PV in a group of criminal defendants who were referred for pre-sentence psychological evaluations and subse quently placed on probation. Based on the Gendreau et al. (1996) meta-analysis and the studies just reviewed, we predicted that individuals with a PV would produce meaningfully higher scores (Cohen’s d > .50) than probation completers on the following MMPI-2-RF measures of externalizing psychopathology: BXD, RC4, RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, DISC-r, and AGGR-r. We also examined associations between static demographic variables and PV. Finally, we calculated relative risk ratios (RRRs) for demo graphic variables and MMPI-2-RF scales that were practically meaningful predictors of PV in this sample. RRRs are useful
statistics for conveying the practical implications of these findings in that they quantify the increase in risk for PV when certain demographic characteristics are present and/or when MMPI-2-RF scale elevations occur.
Method Sample The initial sample included 182 non-consecutive criminal de fendants (148 males, 34 females) who were referred for pre sentence psychological evaluations from 1990 to 2010 by a felony court in northeastern Ohio. One hundred sixteen of these individ uals (63.7%) were ordered to complete probation for periods ranging from 1 to 5 years (M = 2.4, SD = 1.0). Using publicly available court dockets, we found that 48.2% of these individuals violated probation, 46.5% completed probation, and 3.4% re mained on probation at the conclusion of data collection. Data were not available to determine the reasons for probation viola tions. We identified a subset of 34 probationers who violated within 1 year of sentencing and compared them with the 54 criminal de fendants who successfully completed probation. This was done in order to control for varying probation lengths in the violator group and focus on offenders with a more acute risk of probation failure. As a result, 28 individuals who violated probation after the first year were excluded from this study. We scored MMPI-2-RF scales primarily from administrations of the MMPI-2 (82.6% of the sample). Research supports the com parability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores when calculated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/ 2011; Van Der Heijden, Egger, & Derksen, 2010). We excluded 18 individuals (20.5%) with invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols according to the test authors’ published guidelines (Cannot Say > 18, Vari able Response Inconsistency > 80, True Response Inconsis tency > 80, Infrequent Responses > 120, and Infrequent Psycho pathology Responses > 100; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). This yielded a final sample of 70 probationers (51 males, 19 females). Twenty-five of the individuals violated probation within 1 year, compared with 45 individuals who successfully completed probation. The final sample ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) and had 8 to 16 years of education (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1). The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), but African Americans were also represented (14.3%). Individuals in the sample were primarily convicted of mid-level felonies (F-l: 2.9%; F-2: 14.3%; F-3: 22.9%; F-4: 31.4%; F-5: 12.9%). They had an average of 2.8 criminal charges (SD = 2.8) and 1.7 convictions (SD = 1.1). The most common convictions were for theft-related charges (22.9%), followed by assault (17.1%), sexual offenses (15.7%), domestic violence (12.9%), and endangering (7.1%). Individuals who were excluded due to invalid responding were significantly older (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) than the final sample (M = 28.1, SD = 9.6), t(86) = 2.087, p = .040. They were also significantly more likely to be African American, x2(2) = 7.245, p = .027 (n = 5 observed; 2.7 expected) and marginally more likely to be male, x2(l) = 3.799, p = .051 (n = 17 observed; 13.0 expected). Individuals who were excluded due to invalid respond ing demonstrated a statistical trend toward being less educated (M = 10.6, SD = 1.8) than the final sample (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1),
MMPI-2-RF AND VIOLATING PROBATION 1(86) = 1.927, p = .057. No significant differences on conviction level or probation status (i.e., completer vs. violator) were ob served (ps > .26).
Measures MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF, consisting of 338 true-false items, is a broadband measure o f personality-psychopathology. It has nine Validity scales designed to assess test-taking approach and 42 Substantive scales that measure constructs from the fol lowing domains: Emotional/Intemalizing Dysfunction, Thought Dysfunction, Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction, Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and Interpersonal Functioning. The MMPI-2R F’s reliability and validity are extensively documented in the test’s technical manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011). This manual provides findings from a variety of samples, including pre-trial criminal defendants.
Procedures Offenders were referred by judges for psychological evaluations to inform sentencing decisions. Typically an individual was re ferred if there were concerns that cognitive, mental health, sub stance use, or personality pathology issues could impact probation success. The evaluator’s primary role was to provide the court with a clinical diagnosis and associated treatment recommendations. A fter considering findings from the psychological evaluation and various other sources o f information (e.g., severity o f crime, prior legal history), the judge sentenced the defendant to either proba tion or incarceration. Because the defendants were tried in a jurisdiction with a publicly available court docket, we were able to use this resource to determine probation status for offenders who had been evaluated. Data collection was approved by an Institu tional Review Board, and all research data were de-identified.
Results Demographics Differences We computed independent samples t tests to examine for dif ferences between the violators and completers on age and years of education. Though violators were younger (M = 31.9, SD = 13.4) than completers {M = 37.1, SD = 13.3), this difference was non-significant, t(68) = 1.529, p = .131. Violators were more educated (M = 11.8, SD = 2.1) than completers (M = 11.5, SD = 2.0), but the difference was also non-significant, t(68) = 0.570, P — .571. Chi-square analyses showed no association between probation status and gender, x 2( l) = 1.543, p = .214, or race, X2(l) = 0.062, p = .804.
MMPI-2-RF Scale Score Differences In Table 1 we present independent samples t tests o f differences between the violators and completers on all M M PI-2-RF scales. In all cases where meaningful effect sizes were observed (as indi cated by Cohen’s d > .50), the violator group scored higher than the completer group. The Higher-Order scale Behavioral/Extemal izing Dysfunction fBXD), Restructured Clinical scale Antisocial Behavior (RC4), and Specific Problems scale Substance Abuse
1377
(SUB) demonstrated large effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d = 0.80 or higher; Cohen, 1992) in differentiating violators from completers. The Higher-Order scale Thought Dysfunction (THD), Restruc tured Clinical scale Aberrant Experiences (RC8), PersonalityPsychopathology-5 scale Disconstraint-Revised (DISC-r), and Ex ternalizing Specific Problems scales Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT) demonstrated medium effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d = 0 .5 0 -0 .7 9 ) in differenti ating the two groups.
Relative Risk Ratios In Table 2 we present the relative risk ratios (RRRs) for MMPI2-RF scales yielding statistically significant and clinically mean ingful associations (Cohen’s d > .50) with probation status. We calculated RRRs for all possible T-score cutoffs that yielded selection ratios ranging from 3.0% to 30%. Selection ratios, which are also called elevation rates, represent the percentage o f individ uals who produce scores at or above a designated cutoff. W e chose to limit our analyses to cutoffs with selection ratios o f at least 3.0% in this sample to minimize the risk of outliers influencing the results. W e further limited the analyses to cutoffs producing se lection ratios of no more than 30.0% to minimize false positive findings. Overall, these criteria yielded 34 RRRs, o f which we present only the 17 statistically significant findings to conserve space. In order to assist the reader with interpretation, we provide a description o f the relative risk ratio for THD and probation status (i.e., the first row in Table 2). The selection ratio indicates that 20.0% o f the sample scored at or above 74T on this scale. The risk of being a violator if THD > 74T is 64.3% and the risk if THD is < 74T is 28.6%. Dividing the risk if elevated by the risk if not elevated yields an RRR of 2.250. Because the R RR ’s 95% confi dence interval (Cl: 1.274, 3.975) does not overlap with the value 1.0, the finding is statistically significant. If the 95% C l did overlap with 1.0, we would fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is an equal risk o f violating probation for those scoring at or above versus below the cutoff (i.e., if the risk were the same, the RRR would necessarily equal 1.0). The RRR demonstrated the practical implications o f the asso ciations between probation status and THD, BXD, RC4, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r. The findings for SUB were particularly strong. For example, 11.4% o f the sample produced 85T or higher SUB elevations. Among those who scored in this range, 87.5% were violators, whereas the sample of individuals producing scores lower than 85T on SUB was composed of only 29.0% violators. Therefore, these findings indicate that those scoring at or above 85T on SUB in this sample were at over a three times greater risk of PV than were those who scored below this cutoff.
Discussion The purpose o f this study was to identify M M PI-2-RF predictors o f PV in a sample of offenders who had been referred for pre sentence psychological evaluations. W e compared successful pro bation completers with acute violators using demographic infor mation and the MMPI-2-RF. Demographic variables were not associated with probation completion status; however, MMPI2-RF scales BXD, THD, RC4, RC8, SUB, JCP, AGG, ACT, and
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
1378
Table 1 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Descriptive Comparisons Across Probation Completer and Violator Groups (N = 70) Violator (n = 45)
Completer in = 25) Scale name Higher-Order scales Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
Restructured Clinical scales Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Cynicism Antisocial Behavior
Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Behavior Specific Problems scales Malaise Gastrointestinal Complaints Head Pain Complaints Neurological Complaints Cognitive Complaints Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress/Worry Anxiety Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears Multiple Specific Fears Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Aggression Activation
Family Problems Interpersonal Passivity Social Avoidance Shyness Disaffiliativeness Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales Aggressiveness Psychoticism Disconstraint
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
Statistical comparisons t
d
M
SD
M
SD
61.0 55.5 53.0
15.9 12.9 12.7
62.1 62.6 62.0
14.9 14.6 10.2
0.295 2.113 3.036
.769 .038 .003
.07 .52 .80
62.0 59.3 59.2 55.7 57.3 61.9 55.4 55.2 47.3
14.1 16.9 16.4 13.2 14.6 12.6 12.7 11.6 10.0
63.3 63.2 57.9 55.8 68.1 67.2 61.4 61.7 50.4
14.1 16.5 15.2 9.9 11.9 14.5 15.2 13.5 8.4
0.354 0.915 -0.320 0.055 3.157 1.600 1.747 2.124 1.296
.724 .364 .750 .956 .002 .114 .085 .037 .199
.09 .23 -.08 .01 .81 .39 .43 .52 .33
59.4 59.1 55.3 60.0 61.3 60.7 56.4 60.5 57.4 57.0 60.6 51.3 53.9 48.5 56.7 51.6 48.9 51.0 53.2 51.8 56.3 53.1 55.5
14.5 17.1 12.7 14.3 17.5 18.4 13.2 13.4 13.4 11.5 17.7 13.0 11.8 9.6 15.2 12.0 12.1 11.2 14.3 12.1 13.4 11.6 12.9
61.2 63.8 56.9 64.3 65.7 63.2 53.6 61.8 59.9 55.2 68.8 55.9 58.9 52.5 65.6 64.5 54.9 57.4 58.1 51.1 53.6 52.7 53.5
13.6 16.8 12.3 16.6 14.5 20.4 13.0 15.4 12.2 12.1 20.0 11.8 15.3 10.8 12.8 18.2 10.5 13.1 13.5 12.7 11.6 12.0 11.9
0.500 1.105 0.496 1.143 1.073 0.520 -0.832 0.389 0.778 -0.616 1.762 1.464 1.538 1.590 2.484 3.574 2.093 2.117 1.390 -0.224 -0.860 -0.164 -0.645
.618 .273 .622 .257 .287 .605 .409 .699 .439 .540 .083 .148 .129 .116 .015 .001 .040 .038 .169 .824 .393 .870 .521
.13 .28 .12 .28 .28 .13 -.21 .10 .20 -.1 5 .43 .37 .37 .39 .64 .86 .53 .52 .35 -.0 6 -.2 2 -.0 4 -.1 6
48.1 55.4 52.1 58.3 57.8
10.1 12.0 10.7 12.9 14.3
51.1 59.6 58.2 60.9 55.1
11.3 13.8 9.9 13.5 11.6
1.145 1.346 2.341 0.783 -0.803
.256 .183 .022 .436 .425
.28 .33 .59 .19 -.21
P
Note. Boldface indicates data that are statistically significant (p < .05) and clinically meaningful (Cohen’s d a .50). Italics indicates a hypothesized predictor.
DISC-r demonstrated moderate to large effect sizes in differenti ating the two groups. Relative risk ratio analyses indicated that elevations at or above certain cutoffs on these scales were associ ated with two to three times greater risk of PV. Though demographic variables have been linked to recidivism in past research (Gendreau et al., 1996), in the current study age, race, gender, and education showed no statistically significant associations with PV. These findings do not necessarily indicate that demographic information is an unimportant consideration for PV, because the current sample represented only offenders who prompted concerns that psychopathology, cognitive problems,
and/or personality pathology were present and might impede suc cessful completion of probation. Furthermore, probationers with limited education and/or cognitive abilities may not have been administered the MMPI or may have produced invalid protocols, thus precluding their inclusion in the study and limiting variability for the education variable. As hypothesized, BXD, RC4, SUB, JCP, AGG, ACT, and DISC-r differentiated between probation completers and violators. Individuals with higher scores on these scales are likely to exhibit a broad range of externalizing behaviors associated with under controlled behavior, including substance abuse, a history of crim-
MMPI-2-RF AND VIOLATING PROBATION
1379
Table 2 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Relative Risk Ratios fo r Probation Violation (N = 70) Scale name and cutoff score (S) Thought Dysfunction 74 70 Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction 65 Antisocial Behavior 82 79 76 Aberrant Experiences 80 76 70 66 Substance Abuse 93 85 77 69 Activation 75 Disconstraint 69 66 Note.
SR
Risk if elevated
Risk if not elevated
RRR
95% Cl
20.0% 25.7%
64.3% 55.6%
28.6% 28.8%
2.250 1.926
1.274, 3.975 1.063, 3.489
30.0%
57.1%
26.5%
2.154
1.188. 3.906
10.0% 10.0% 20.0%
71.4% 71.4% 57.1%
31.7% 31.7% 30.4%
2.250 2.250 1.882
1.245, 4.068 1.245, 4.068 1.030. 3.439
5.7% 8.6% 22.9% 27.1%
75.0% 66.7% 56.3% 57.9%
33.3% 32.8% 29.6% 27.5%
2.250 2.032 1.898 2.109
1.162, 1.044, 1.046, 1.171.
4.356 3.953 3.447 3.798
4.3% 11.4% 15.7% 27.1%
100.0% 87.5% 72.7% 63.2%
32.8% 29.0% 28.8% 25.5%
3.045 3.014 2.524 2.478
2.162, 1.885, 1.471, 1.385.
4.289 4.818 4.332 4.432
10.0%
71.4%
31.7%
2.250
1.245, 4.068
8.6% 18.6%
66.7% 61.5%
32.8% 29.8%
2.032 2.063
1.044, 3.953 1.148, 3.707
Base rate — 35.7%. SR — selection ratio; RRR — relative risk ratio; Cl = confidence interval.
inal behavior, violence, activation, and poor impulse control (BenPorath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). These are common characteristics of individuals with antisocial personality disorder, a robust dy namic predictor of recidivism. However, contrary to our hypoth eses, AGGR-r did not differentiate between the two groups. Unlike the AGG scale that assesses for physically aggressive and violent behavior, AGGR-r is associated with instrumental aggression and social dominance. Based on the results of this study, these character istics may be less relevant to the prediction of PVs. Our findings converge with those of Mattson et al. (2012), who found that AGG but not AGGR-r predicted chug court failure in a sample of criminal defendants. Also contrary to our hypotheses, RC9 did not differentiate between the violator and completer groups. This scale has broad content that assesses not only sensation seeking and hypomania but also narcissism, excitability, and restlessness. It may be that hypomanic tendencies, of which ACT is the best MMPI-2-RF measure (Watson, Quilty, & Bagby, 2011), are a risk factor for PV, but the broader content of RC9 is not associated with this outcome. MMPI-2-RF scales THD and RC8 demonstrated unpredicted associations with probation status, with higher scores on these scales being associated with PV. Because THD and RC8 scores were for the most part not clinically elevated in either of the sub-samples, their associations with PV likely reflect increased risk related to unusual thinking rather than severe psychotic symp toms. This is consistent with research indicating that certain miscognitions, labeled criminal thinking errors, are correlated with past and future criminal activity (Walters, 2002). These errors include, for example, rationalizing aggressive behaviors and fail ure to consider possible outcomes of illegal activity. The sample of
violators may have been more prone to these and other criminal thinking errors because of their unusual thinking. Relative risk ratio analyses demonstrated the practical implica tions of the findings for THD, BXD, RC4, RC8, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r. The RRRs indicated that individuals scoring at or above designated cutoffs on these scales were at a two to three times greater risk of violating probation when compared with those who scored below a given cutoff. These findings are particularly mean ingful when considered in light of the base rate of violations in this sample, which was approximately 36%. For example, 100% of indi viduals producing elevations on SUB > 93T violated probation, whereas individuals scoring below that cutoff violated probation at a rate of 32.8%, which was fairly consistent with the base rate. There fore, the RRR of 3.04 in this analysis was the maximum possible value. The rate of PV ranged from 25.5% to 37.0% in the unelevated scale groups for the remaining RRR analyses that were presented. However, it is important to note that the base rate would have been higher had we included all individuals who violated probation (i.e., not just those who had a PV within their first year of probation). The results of our study indicate that the MMPI-2-RF may be a useful adjunct to structured risk assessment instruments when used in psychological evaluations intended to inform sentencing deci sions. Whereas risk assessment instruments such as the HCR-20 utilize clinical judgment to code historical and clinical information associated with increased risk for problematic outcomes (e.g., violence), the MMPI-2-RF is a self-report measure of clinical constructs that are associated with recidivism in general and PVs in the current study. Overall, the integration of several sources of information— including psychological testing, clinical interview
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
1380
information, and collateral records—will likely yield the most informed opinion. Our study design illustrates the benefits of using publicly avail able court dockets to obtain longitudinal outcomes in criminal forensic settings. We were able to utilize this information because Ohio law dictates that certain government records, including those from Ohio’s court systems, be made publicly available. Several other states, including California, Texas, Florida, and New York, have similar laws that allow for public access to some government documents. In the current study, this design was particularly ad vantageous, because it led to a 100% data retention rate over time. Indeed, though it is possible for an offender to cease reporting, this action would result in a warrant for his or her arrest. Though the study design has several strengths, one limitation was that the public court dockets provided no information con cerning the reasons for PV. Therefore, we were unable to conduct more focused analyses with specific types of PVs. However, the study was also limited by a relatively small sample size, which would likely have precluded such an examination. Sample size considerations notwithstanding, the results from the current study converge with the findings of Mattson et al. (2012), who found that several MMPI-2-RF scales measuring externalizing psychopathol ogy and thought dysfunction were associated with drug court failure in a slightly larger sample of criminal defendants. Finally, the current study may have some degree of selection bias, because the sample included a subset of convicted felons referred by a judge for a psychological evaluation to inform sentencing deci sions due to concerns that cognitive, mental health, substance use, or personality pathology issues could impact probation success. Perhaps for these reasons the current sample had a high base rate of PVs; however, the average age, typical offenses, and length of probation were generally consistent with national trends for felony defendants (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). The generalizability of the study is also limited insofar as the PV group included only individuals who violated in their first year of probation to control for varying probation lengths in that group. Despite these limitations, the current study identified several predictors of PV in a sample of criminal defendants referred for pre-sentence psychological evaluations. Results of the RRR anal yses indicated that THD, BXD, RC4, RC8, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r had the most clinical utility in predicting this outcome. These findings support the use of the MMPI-2-RF to inform sentencing decisions. However, it is important to emphasize that our results should not be interpreted as indicating that individuals who score at or above cutoffs associated with substantially greater risk for PV should be sentenced to prison. Rather these findings can perhaps most constructively be applied in identifying individ uals who are more likely to successfully complete probation if placed under more rigorous supervision.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Felony defendants in large urban counties. Retreived from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc06 .pdf Butcher, J., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, G. W., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-608. doi: 10.1111/j. 1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathol ogy. Annual Review o f Clinical Psychology, 2, 111-133. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095213 Maruschak, L. M., & Parks, E. (2012). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. Mattson, C., Powers, B., Halfaker, D., Akeson, S., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2012). Predicting drug court treatment completion using the MMPI-2RF. Psychological Assessment, 24, 937-943. 10.1037/a0028267 Phillips, D. (2007). Probation and parole. New York, NY: Routledge. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On the hierar chical structure of mood and anxiety disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers. Journal o f Abnor mal Psychology, 117, 576-590. doi:10.1037/a0012536 Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMP1-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a batterers’ intervention program. Journal o f Personality As sessment, 90, 129-135. doi: 10.1080/00223890701845153 Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical manual. Minne apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Van Der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I., & Derksen, J. J. (2010). Comparability of scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Journal o f Personality Assessment, 92, 254-259. doi: 10.1080/00223891003670208 Walters, G. D. (2002). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS): A review and meta-analysis. Assessment, 9, 278-291. doi: 10.1177/1073191102009003007 Watson, C., Quilty, L. C., & Bagby, R. M. (2011). Differentiating bipolar disorder from major depressive disorder using the MMPI-2-RF: A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. Journal of Psychopa thology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 368-374. doi:10.1007/sl0862010-9212-7 Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S„ Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing Risk for Violence, Version 2 (HCR-20). Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.
References Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Univer sity of Minnesota Press.
Received March 16, 2014 Revision received July 7, 2014 Accepted July 9, 2014 ■
Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
© 2014 American Psychological Association 1040-3590/14/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000022
BRIEF REPORT
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Predictors of Violating Probation After Felonious Crimes Anthony M. Tarescavage
Lynn Luna-Jones
Kent State University
Capella University and Psycho Diagnostic Clinic, Akron, Ohio
Yossef S. Ben-Porath Kent State University We compared Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores of 25 individuals convicted of felonies who violated probation within 1 year of sentencing with those of 45 similarly sentenced defendants who completed probation successfully. The sample (51 males, 19 females) ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) and had 8 to 16 years of education (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1). The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), but African Americans were also represented (14.3%). Individuals in the sample were primarily convicted of mid-level felonies (F-l: 2.9%; F-2: 14.3%; F-3: 22.9%; F-4: 31.4%; F-5: 12.9%). As hypothesized, moderate to large statistically significant differences between probation completers and violators were found on several MMPI-2-RF scales, including Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction, Antisocial Behavior, Juvenile Conduct Prob lems, Substance Abuse, Aggression, Activation, and Disconstraint. Relative risk ratio analyses indicated that probationers who produced elevated scores on these scales were up to 3 times more likely to violate probation than were those with non-elevated scores. Implications of these results and limitations of our findings are discussed. Keywords: MMPI-2-RF, forensic assessment, probation failure, antisociality
Nearly five million adults in the United States were under community supervision in 2011, and approximately 25% of these offenders violated terms o f their community control before satis fying supervision requirements (M aruschak & Parks, 2012). High rates of probation violations contribute to prison overcrowding and public safety concerns (Phillips, 2007). In response, some research ers have created standardized risk assessments for use in forensic settings, such as the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; W eb ster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), whereas others have sought to identify constructs predictive o f probation violations (PVs) and,
relatedly, recidivism after experiencing the consequences o f one’s criminal behavior. In one o f the most comprehensive efforts, Gendreau, Little, and Goggin (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 131 studies and found that static risk factors, such as age, gender, race, and criminal history, as well as dynamic risk factors (i.e., criminogenic factors amenable to treatment), were both predictive o f recidivism. In particular, interpersonal conflict, socialization with other offenders, substance abuse, and antisocial behaviors were identified as primary risk factors. The construct o f antisoci ality, most frequently measured in the meta-analysis by Clinical Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate) o f the M innesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001), was one o f the most robust predictors o f recidivism. The M M PI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) is an updated version of the M M PI-2 with improved psychometric features and a scale structure consistent with contemporary models o f psychopathology (Krueger & Markon, 2006; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008). The MMPI2-RF shows particular promise as a potential instrument for the evaluation of offenders under consideration for probation, as it has scales that assess some o f the previously described dynamic con structs that are predictive of recidivism, including measures of interpersonal conflict, substance abuse, and antisocial personality characteristics. The scales ju st mentioned are included in the test’s Behavioral/ Externalizing Dysfunction domain, which has a hierarchical struc-
This article was published Online First August 18, 2014. Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State Uni versity; Lynn Luna-Jones, Department of Psychology, Capella University, and Psycho Diagnostic Clinic, Akron, Ohio; Yossef S. Ben-Porath, De partment of Psychology, Kent State University. Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI-2-RF publisher; the University of Minnesota Press; and the distributor, Pearson Assessments. He receives royalties on sales of MMPI-2-RF materials and research grants from the MMPI-2-RF publisher. Portions of this study were presented at the 2014 American Psychology and Law Society Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. The authors thank Raquel Morson and Yang Liuhong for assisting with variable coding. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, 144 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242. E-mail: [email protected]
1375
1376
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
ture. At the broadest level of this domain, the Higher-Order scale Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) measures a wide array of behaviors and difficulties associated with under-controlled behavior. Restructured Clinical scale Antisocial Behavior (RC4) is a mid-level measure that has items assessing a variety of constructs directly associated with antisocial personality disorder criteria, including failure to conform to social norms and deceitfulness. This scale also has items assessing constructs associated with antisocial personality disorder, such as juvenile conduct problems, substance abuse, and familial discord. Restructured Clinical scale Hypomanic Behavior (RC9) is a mid-level measure of engagement with one’s environment, and the scale is marked by items assessing poor impulse control, aggression, and sensation-seeking. The MMPI-2-RF’s Specific Problems scales include four nar row measures that are associated with Restructured Clinical scales RC4 and RC9: Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Substance Abuse (SUB), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT). The JCP scale is a measure of a history of juvenile misconduct involving stealing, negative peer group influence, and problematic behaviors at school. The SUB scale measures problematic alcohol use, drug use, and use of prescription medications for illicit purposes. Both these scales aid interpretation of RC4. The AGG scale measures engagement in physically violent behaviors, and the ACT scale assesses excessive energy that can be associated with a manic episode at high levels. These two scales aid interpretation of RC9. Two Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales from the MMPI-2RF’s Behavioral/Externalizing domain—Aggressiveness-Revised (AGGR-r) and Disconstraint-Revised (DISC-r)—measure patho logical personality features that can be associated with antisocial personality disorder. The AGGR-r scale measures instrumentally aggressive and assertive behaviors, and the DISC-r scale assesses various manifestations of disconstrained behavior. Past research has demonstrated the utility of the MMPI-2-RF scales in the prediction of offender failure to complete a courtordered drug treatment program, as well as a batterers’ interven tion program (Mattson, Powers, Halfaker, Akeson, & Ben-Porath, 2012; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008). Mattson et al. (2012) found that MMPI-2-RF scales demonstrating associations with increased risk for failure to complete the drug program included BXD, Thought Dysfunction (THD), RC4, Ab errant Experiences (RC8), JCP, AGG, Psychoticism-Revised (PSYC-r), and DISC-r. In an investigation that included only the test’s Restructured Clinical scales, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, et al. (2008) found that RC4 and RC9 were associated with failure to complete a batterers’ intervention program and subsequent recid ivism. The purpose of the current study was to identify MMPI-2-RF predictors of PV in a group of criminal defendants who were referred for pre-sentence psychological evaluations and subse quently placed on probation. Based on the Gendreau et al. (1996) meta-analysis and the studies just reviewed, we predicted that individuals with a PV would produce meaningfully higher scores (Cohen’s d > .50) than probation completers on the following MMPI-2-RF measures of externalizing psychopathology: BXD, RC4, RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, DISC-r, and AGGR-r. We also examined associations between static demographic variables and PV. Finally, we calculated relative risk ratios (RRRs) for demo graphic variables and MMPI-2-RF scales that were practically meaningful predictors of PV in this sample. RRRs are useful
statistics for conveying the practical implications of these findings in that they quantify the increase in risk for PV when certain demographic characteristics are present and/or when MMPI-2-RF scale elevations occur.
Method Sample The initial sample included 182 non-consecutive criminal de fendants (148 males, 34 females) who were referred for pre sentence psychological evaluations from 1990 to 2010 by a felony court in northeastern Ohio. One hundred sixteen of these individ uals (63.7%) were ordered to complete probation for periods ranging from 1 to 5 years (M = 2.4, SD = 1.0). Using publicly available court dockets, we found that 48.2% of these individuals violated probation, 46.5% completed probation, and 3.4% re mained on probation at the conclusion of data collection. Data were not available to determine the reasons for probation viola tions. We identified a subset of 34 probationers who violated within 1 year of sentencing and compared them with the 54 criminal de fendants who successfully completed probation. This was done in order to control for varying probation lengths in the violator group and focus on offenders with a more acute risk of probation failure. As a result, 28 individuals who violated probation after the first year were excluded from this study. We scored MMPI-2-RF scales primarily from administrations of the MMPI-2 (82.6% of the sample). Research supports the com parability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores when calculated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/ 2011; Van Der Heijden, Egger, & Derksen, 2010). We excluded 18 individuals (20.5%) with invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols according to the test authors’ published guidelines (Cannot Say > 18, Vari able Response Inconsistency > 80, True Response Inconsis tency > 80, Infrequent Responses > 120, and Infrequent Psycho pathology Responses > 100; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). This yielded a final sample of 70 probationers (51 males, 19 females). Twenty-five of the individuals violated probation within 1 year, compared with 45 individuals who successfully completed probation. The final sample ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) and had 8 to 16 years of education (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1). The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), but African Americans were also represented (14.3%). Individuals in the sample were primarily convicted of mid-level felonies (F-l: 2.9%; F-2: 14.3%; F-3: 22.9%; F-4: 31.4%; F-5: 12.9%). They had an average of 2.8 criminal charges (SD = 2.8) and 1.7 convictions (SD = 1.1). The most common convictions were for theft-related charges (22.9%), followed by assault (17.1%), sexual offenses (15.7%), domestic violence (12.9%), and endangering (7.1%). Individuals who were excluded due to invalid responding were significantly older (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) than the final sample (M = 28.1, SD = 9.6), t(86) = 2.087, p = .040. They were also significantly more likely to be African American, x2(2) = 7.245, p = .027 (n = 5 observed; 2.7 expected) and marginally more likely to be male, x2(l) = 3.799, p = .051 (n = 17 observed; 13.0 expected). Individuals who were excluded due to invalid respond ing demonstrated a statistical trend toward being less educated (M = 10.6, SD = 1.8) than the final sample (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1),
MMPI-2-RF AND VIOLATING PROBATION 1(86) = 1.927, p = .057. No significant differences on conviction level or probation status (i.e., completer vs. violator) were ob served (ps > .26).
Measures MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF, consisting of 338 true-false items, is a broadband measure o f personality-psychopathology. It has nine Validity scales designed to assess test-taking approach and 42 Substantive scales that measure constructs from the fol lowing domains: Emotional/Intemalizing Dysfunction, Thought Dysfunction, Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction, Somatic/Cognitive Complaints, and Interpersonal Functioning. The MMPI-2R F’s reliability and validity are extensively documented in the test’s technical manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011). This manual provides findings from a variety of samples, including pre-trial criminal defendants.
Procedures Offenders were referred by judges for psychological evaluations to inform sentencing decisions. Typically an individual was re ferred if there were concerns that cognitive, mental health, sub stance use, or personality pathology issues could impact probation success. The evaluator’s primary role was to provide the court with a clinical diagnosis and associated treatment recommendations. A fter considering findings from the psychological evaluation and various other sources o f information (e.g., severity o f crime, prior legal history), the judge sentenced the defendant to either proba tion or incarceration. Because the defendants were tried in a jurisdiction with a publicly available court docket, we were able to use this resource to determine probation status for offenders who had been evaluated. Data collection was approved by an Institu tional Review Board, and all research data were de-identified.
Results Demographics Differences We computed independent samples t tests to examine for dif ferences between the violators and completers on age and years of education. Though violators were younger (M = 31.9, SD = 13.4) than completers {M = 37.1, SD = 13.3), this difference was non-significant, t(68) = 1.529, p = .131. Violators were more educated (M = 11.8, SD = 2.1) than completers (M = 11.5, SD = 2.0), but the difference was also non-significant, t(68) = 0.570, P — .571. Chi-square analyses showed no association between probation status and gender, x 2( l) = 1.543, p = .214, or race, X2(l) = 0.062, p = .804.
MMPI-2-RF Scale Score Differences In Table 1 we present independent samples t tests o f differences between the violators and completers on all M M PI-2-RF scales. In all cases where meaningful effect sizes were observed (as indi cated by Cohen’s d > .50), the violator group scored higher than the completer group. The Higher-Order scale Behavioral/Extemal izing Dysfunction fBXD), Restructured Clinical scale Antisocial Behavior (RC4), and Specific Problems scale Substance Abuse
1377
(SUB) demonstrated large effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d = 0.80 or higher; Cohen, 1992) in differentiating violators from completers. The Higher-Order scale Thought Dysfunction (THD), Restruc tured Clinical scale Aberrant Experiences (RC8), PersonalityPsychopathology-5 scale Disconstraint-Revised (DISC-r), and Ex ternalizing Specific Problems scales Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), Aggression (AGG), and Activation (ACT) demonstrated medium effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d = 0 .5 0 -0 .7 9 ) in differenti ating the two groups.
Relative Risk Ratios In Table 2 we present the relative risk ratios (RRRs) for MMPI2-RF scales yielding statistically significant and clinically mean ingful associations (Cohen’s d > .50) with probation status. We calculated RRRs for all possible T-score cutoffs that yielded selection ratios ranging from 3.0% to 30%. Selection ratios, which are also called elevation rates, represent the percentage o f individ uals who produce scores at or above a designated cutoff. W e chose to limit our analyses to cutoffs with selection ratios o f at least 3.0% in this sample to minimize the risk of outliers influencing the results. W e further limited the analyses to cutoffs producing se lection ratios of no more than 30.0% to minimize false positive findings. Overall, these criteria yielded 34 RRRs, o f which we present only the 17 statistically significant findings to conserve space. In order to assist the reader with interpretation, we provide a description o f the relative risk ratio for THD and probation status (i.e., the first row in Table 2). The selection ratio indicates that 20.0% o f the sample scored at or above 74T on this scale. The risk of being a violator if THD > 74T is 64.3% and the risk if THD is < 74T is 28.6%. Dividing the risk if elevated by the risk if not elevated yields an RRR of 2.250. Because the R RR ’s 95% confi dence interval (Cl: 1.274, 3.975) does not overlap with the value 1.0, the finding is statistically significant. If the 95% C l did overlap with 1.0, we would fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is an equal risk o f violating probation for those scoring at or above versus below the cutoff (i.e., if the risk were the same, the RRR would necessarily equal 1.0). The RRR demonstrated the practical implications o f the asso ciations between probation status and THD, BXD, RC4, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r. The findings for SUB were particularly strong. For example, 11.4% o f the sample produced 85T or higher SUB elevations. Among those who scored in this range, 87.5% were violators, whereas the sample of individuals producing scores lower than 85T on SUB was composed of only 29.0% violators. Therefore, these findings indicate that those scoring at or above 85T on SUB in this sample were at over a three times greater risk of PV than were those who scored below this cutoff.
Discussion The purpose o f this study was to identify M M PI-2-RF predictors o f PV in a sample of offenders who had been referred for pre sentence psychological evaluations. W e compared successful pro bation completers with acute violators using demographic infor mation and the MMPI-2-RF. Demographic variables were not associated with probation completion status; however, MMPI2-RF scales BXD, THD, RC4, RC8, SUB, JCP, AGG, ACT, and
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
1378
Table 1 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Descriptive Comparisons Across Probation Completer and Violator Groups (N = 70) Violator (n = 45)
Completer in = 25) Scale name Higher-Order scales Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
Restructured Clinical scales Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Cynicism Antisocial Behavior
Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Behavior Specific Problems scales Malaise Gastrointestinal Complaints Head Pain Complaints Neurological Complaints Cognitive Complaints Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress/Worry Anxiety Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears Multiple Specific Fears Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Aggression Activation
Family Problems Interpersonal Passivity Social Avoidance Shyness Disaffiliativeness Personality-Psychopathology-5 scales Aggressiveness Psychoticism Disconstraint
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
Statistical comparisons t
d
M
SD
M
SD
61.0 55.5 53.0
15.9 12.9 12.7
62.1 62.6 62.0
14.9 14.6 10.2
0.295 2.113 3.036
.769 .038 .003
.07 .52 .80
62.0 59.3 59.2 55.7 57.3 61.9 55.4 55.2 47.3
14.1 16.9 16.4 13.2 14.6 12.6 12.7 11.6 10.0
63.3 63.2 57.9 55.8 68.1 67.2 61.4 61.7 50.4
14.1 16.5 15.2 9.9 11.9 14.5 15.2 13.5 8.4
0.354 0.915 -0.320 0.055 3.157 1.600 1.747 2.124 1.296
.724 .364 .750 .956 .002 .114 .085 .037 .199
.09 .23 -.08 .01 .81 .39 .43 .52 .33
59.4 59.1 55.3 60.0 61.3 60.7 56.4 60.5 57.4 57.0 60.6 51.3 53.9 48.5 56.7 51.6 48.9 51.0 53.2 51.8 56.3 53.1 55.5
14.5 17.1 12.7 14.3 17.5 18.4 13.2 13.4 13.4 11.5 17.7 13.0 11.8 9.6 15.2 12.0 12.1 11.2 14.3 12.1 13.4 11.6 12.9
61.2 63.8 56.9 64.3 65.7 63.2 53.6 61.8 59.9 55.2 68.8 55.9 58.9 52.5 65.6 64.5 54.9 57.4 58.1 51.1 53.6 52.7 53.5
13.6 16.8 12.3 16.6 14.5 20.4 13.0 15.4 12.2 12.1 20.0 11.8 15.3 10.8 12.8 18.2 10.5 13.1 13.5 12.7 11.6 12.0 11.9
0.500 1.105 0.496 1.143 1.073 0.520 -0.832 0.389 0.778 -0.616 1.762 1.464 1.538 1.590 2.484 3.574 2.093 2.117 1.390 -0.224 -0.860 -0.164 -0.645
.618 .273 .622 .257 .287 .605 .409 .699 .439 .540 .083 .148 .129 .116 .015 .001 .040 .038 .169 .824 .393 .870 .521
.13 .28 .12 .28 .28 .13 -.21 .10 .20 -.1 5 .43 .37 .37 .39 .64 .86 .53 .52 .35 -.0 6 -.2 2 -.0 4 -.1 6
48.1 55.4 52.1 58.3 57.8
10.1 12.0 10.7 12.9 14.3
51.1 59.6 58.2 60.9 55.1
11.3 13.8 9.9 13.5 11.6
1.145 1.346 2.341 0.783 -0.803
.256 .183 .022 .436 .425
.28 .33 .59 .19 -.21
P
Note. Boldface indicates data that are statistically significant (p < .05) and clinically meaningful (Cohen’s d a .50). Italics indicates a hypothesized predictor.
DISC-r demonstrated moderate to large effect sizes in differenti ating the two groups. Relative risk ratio analyses indicated that elevations at or above certain cutoffs on these scales were associ ated with two to three times greater risk of PV. Though demographic variables have been linked to recidivism in past research (Gendreau et al., 1996), in the current study age, race, gender, and education showed no statistically significant associations with PV. These findings do not necessarily indicate that demographic information is an unimportant consideration for PV, because the current sample represented only offenders who prompted concerns that psychopathology, cognitive problems,
and/or personality pathology were present and might impede suc cessful completion of probation. Furthermore, probationers with limited education and/or cognitive abilities may not have been administered the MMPI or may have produced invalid protocols, thus precluding their inclusion in the study and limiting variability for the education variable. As hypothesized, BXD, RC4, SUB, JCP, AGG, ACT, and DISC-r differentiated between probation completers and violators. Individuals with higher scores on these scales are likely to exhibit a broad range of externalizing behaviors associated with under controlled behavior, including substance abuse, a history of crim-
MMPI-2-RF AND VIOLATING PROBATION
1379
Table 2 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Relative Risk Ratios fo r Probation Violation (N = 70) Scale name and cutoff score (S) Thought Dysfunction 74 70 Behavioral/Extemalizing Dysfunction 65 Antisocial Behavior 82 79 76 Aberrant Experiences 80 76 70 66 Substance Abuse 93 85 77 69 Activation 75 Disconstraint 69 66 Note.
SR
Risk if elevated
Risk if not elevated
RRR
95% Cl
20.0% 25.7%
64.3% 55.6%
28.6% 28.8%
2.250 1.926
1.274, 3.975 1.063, 3.489
30.0%
57.1%
26.5%
2.154
1.188. 3.906
10.0% 10.0% 20.0%
71.4% 71.4% 57.1%
31.7% 31.7% 30.4%
2.250 2.250 1.882
1.245, 4.068 1.245, 4.068 1.030. 3.439
5.7% 8.6% 22.9% 27.1%
75.0% 66.7% 56.3% 57.9%
33.3% 32.8% 29.6% 27.5%
2.250 2.032 1.898 2.109
1.162, 1.044, 1.046, 1.171.
4.356 3.953 3.447 3.798
4.3% 11.4% 15.7% 27.1%
100.0% 87.5% 72.7% 63.2%
32.8% 29.0% 28.8% 25.5%
3.045 3.014 2.524 2.478
2.162, 1.885, 1.471, 1.385.
4.289 4.818 4.332 4.432
10.0%
71.4%
31.7%
2.250
1.245, 4.068
8.6% 18.6%
66.7% 61.5%
32.8% 29.8%
2.032 2.063
1.044, 3.953 1.148, 3.707
Base rate — 35.7%. SR — selection ratio; RRR — relative risk ratio; Cl = confidence interval.
inal behavior, violence, activation, and poor impulse control (BenPorath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). These are common characteristics of individuals with antisocial personality disorder, a robust dy namic predictor of recidivism. However, contrary to our hypoth eses, AGGR-r did not differentiate between the two groups. Unlike the AGG scale that assesses for physically aggressive and violent behavior, AGGR-r is associated with instrumental aggression and social dominance. Based on the results of this study, these character istics may be less relevant to the prediction of PVs. Our findings converge with those of Mattson et al. (2012), who found that AGG but not AGGR-r predicted chug court failure in a sample of criminal defendants. Also contrary to our hypotheses, RC9 did not differentiate between the violator and completer groups. This scale has broad content that assesses not only sensation seeking and hypomania but also narcissism, excitability, and restlessness. It may be that hypomanic tendencies, of which ACT is the best MMPI-2-RF measure (Watson, Quilty, & Bagby, 2011), are a risk factor for PV, but the broader content of RC9 is not associated with this outcome. MMPI-2-RF scales THD and RC8 demonstrated unpredicted associations with probation status, with higher scores on these scales being associated with PV. Because THD and RC8 scores were for the most part not clinically elevated in either of the sub-samples, their associations with PV likely reflect increased risk related to unusual thinking rather than severe psychotic symp toms. This is consistent with research indicating that certain miscognitions, labeled criminal thinking errors, are correlated with past and future criminal activity (Walters, 2002). These errors include, for example, rationalizing aggressive behaviors and fail ure to consider possible outcomes of illegal activity. The sample of
violators may have been more prone to these and other criminal thinking errors because of their unusual thinking. Relative risk ratio analyses demonstrated the practical implica tions of the findings for THD, BXD, RC4, RC8, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r. The RRRs indicated that individuals scoring at or above designated cutoffs on these scales were at a two to three times greater risk of violating probation when compared with those who scored below a given cutoff. These findings are particularly mean ingful when considered in light of the base rate of violations in this sample, which was approximately 36%. For example, 100% of indi viduals producing elevations on SUB > 93T violated probation, whereas individuals scoring below that cutoff violated probation at a rate of 32.8%, which was fairly consistent with the base rate. There fore, the RRR of 3.04 in this analysis was the maximum possible value. The rate of PV ranged from 25.5% to 37.0% in the unelevated scale groups for the remaining RRR analyses that were presented. However, it is important to note that the base rate would have been higher had we included all individuals who violated probation (i.e., not just those who had a PV within their first year of probation). The results of our study indicate that the MMPI-2-RF may be a useful adjunct to structured risk assessment instruments when used in psychological evaluations intended to inform sentencing deci sions. Whereas risk assessment instruments such as the HCR-20 utilize clinical judgment to code historical and clinical information associated with increased risk for problematic outcomes (e.g., violence), the MMPI-2-RF is a self-report measure of clinical constructs that are associated with recidivism in general and PVs in the current study. Overall, the integration of several sources of information— including psychological testing, clinical interview
TARESCAVAGE, LUNA-JONES, AND BEN-PORATH
1380
information, and collateral records—will likely yield the most informed opinion. Our study design illustrates the benefits of using publicly avail able court dockets to obtain longitudinal outcomes in criminal forensic settings. We were able to utilize this information because Ohio law dictates that certain government records, including those from Ohio’s court systems, be made publicly available. Several other states, including California, Texas, Florida, and New York, have similar laws that allow for public access to some government documents. In the current study, this design was particularly ad vantageous, because it led to a 100% data retention rate over time. Indeed, though it is possible for an offender to cease reporting, this action would result in a warrant for his or her arrest. Though the study design has several strengths, one limitation was that the public court dockets provided no information con cerning the reasons for PV. Therefore, we were unable to conduct more focused analyses with specific types of PVs. However, the study was also limited by a relatively small sample size, which would likely have precluded such an examination. Sample size considerations notwithstanding, the results from the current study converge with the findings of Mattson et al. (2012), who found that several MMPI-2-RF scales measuring externalizing psychopathol ogy and thought dysfunction were associated with drug court failure in a slightly larger sample of criminal defendants. Finally, the current study may have some degree of selection bias, because the sample included a subset of convicted felons referred by a judge for a psychological evaluation to inform sentencing deci sions due to concerns that cognitive, mental health, substance use, or personality pathology issues could impact probation success. Perhaps for these reasons the current sample had a high base rate of PVs; however, the average age, typical offenses, and length of probation were generally consistent with national trends for felony defendants (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). The generalizability of the study is also limited insofar as the PV group included only individuals who violated in their first year of probation to control for varying probation lengths in that group. Despite these limitations, the current study identified several predictors of PV in a sample of criminal defendants referred for pre-sentence psychological evaluations. Results of the RRR anal yses indicated that THD, BXD, RC4, RC8, SUB, ACT, and DISC-r had the most clinical utility in predicting this outcome. These findings support the use of the MMPI-2-RF to inform sentencing decisions. However, it is important to emphasize that our results should not be interpreted as indicating that individuals who score at or above cutoffs associated with substantially greater risk for PV should be sentenced to prison. Rather these findings can perhaps most constructively be applied in identifying individ uals who are more likely to successfully complete probation if placed under more rigorous supervision.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Felony defendants in large urban counties. Retreived from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc06 .pdf Butcher, J., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, G. W., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-608. doi: 10.1111/j. 1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathol ogy. Annual Review o f Clinical Psychology, 2, 111-133. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095213 Maruschak, L. M., & Parks, E. (2012). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. Mattson, C., Powers, B., Halfaker, D., Akeson, S., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2012). Predicting drug court treatment completion using the MMPI-2RF. Psychological Assessment, 24, 937-943. 10.1037/a0028267 Phillips, D. (2007). Probation and parole. New York, NY: Routledge. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On the hierar chical structure of mood and anxiety disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers. Journal o f Abnor mal Psychology, 117, 576-590. doi:10.1037/a0012536 Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMP1-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a batterers’ intervention program. Journal o f Personality As sessment, 90, 129-135. doi: 10.1080/00223890701845153 Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical manual. Minne apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Van Der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I., & Derksen, J. J. (2010). Comparability of scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Journal o f Personality Assessment, 92, 254-259. doi: 10.1080/00223891003670208 Walters, G. D. (2002). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS): A review and meta-analysis. Assessment, 9, 278-291. doi: 10.1177/1073191102009003007 Watson, C., Quilty, L. C., & Bagby, R. M. (2011). Differentiating bipolar disorder from major depressive disorder using the MMPI-2-RF: A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. Journal of Psychopa thology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 368-374. doi:10.1007/sl0862010-9212-7 Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S„ Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing Risk for Violence, Version 2 (HCR-20). Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.
References Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Univer sity of Minnesota Press.
Received March 16, 2014 Revision received July 7, 2014 Accepted July 9, 2014 ■
Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
