AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBILWIES
OF PAROLE PREDICTION THROUGH THE
USE OF FIVE PERSONALITY INVENTORIES

Thai: for flu Dogs of Ed D.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

Dana“ Reid Thurston
I954

g ,

llllllllll‘llilllHIlllllllmlllllilllllllllIUIHUlIIleIlI

3 1293 10371940

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Investigation of the Possibilities
of Parole Prediction Through the Use of
Five Personality Inventories

presented by

Donald Reid Thurston

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Edng degree mm
of Emcation

MXM

Major professor

Date Fabmy 15: 1955

0-169

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—:,—.

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

as. it"

€133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF
PAROLE PREDICTION THROUGH THE USE

OF FIVE PERSONALITY INVENTORIES

BY

DONALD REID THURSTON

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOC TOR OF EDUCATION

\

Department of Foundations of Education

V

n
4"

1954

THFSIS

fi

 

_..._t.*_

 

 

 

 

v
m A
A,_ put
isl‘t‘ar , r
. ‘
J U
I
‘n
I

s‘.
try”,
I "Er-P
a»,
‘J
A, Dr L_
Idc
EE: ‘
I91“? d
‘1‘:
W:
U
.I‘u

r-
l
'1‘-
h w
5
«EU “
L‘; h

ABSTRACT

A review of the literature pertaining to parole prediction re-
vealed that almost all factors previously investigated have been pre-
incarceration factors. It seemed that a prediction method should also
consider any differences which might exist in the thinking of the pro-
Spective parolees at the time they are being considered for parole.
Consequently, the purpose of this study was to test one means of dis-
covering whether or not there are differences in the thinking of suc-
cessful and nonsuccessful parolees, and if such differences were dis-
covered, whether or not the nature and extent of such differences
would have value as predictors of parole outcome.

To discover whether or not there are such differences, five
personality inventories were administered to a group of inmates going
on parole. The inventories administered were the Guilford-Martin
Inventory of Factors GAMIN, the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR,
the California Mental Health Analysis, the Johnson Temperament Anal-
ysis, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. A total of
471 inmates from three Michigan penal institutions were tested in this
manner.

After all the inmates had been on parole at least one year
they were identified as successful if they were under active-supervi-
SiOn or had been discharged, or as violators. The successful parol-
ees were divided into two categories, the "best" and the "doubtful."

The significance of differences between mean scores of the
three groups on the subtests of the inventories was determined by
using the critical ratio of the difference between two means. It

Was found that both the "best" and the "doubtful" groups are more

sséieo

masculine in attitudes and interests than the violators; the "best"
are more confident than the violators; the "best" are less nervous
than the violators; both the "best" and the ”doubtful" are more
sympathetic than the violators; the "best" are more satisfied with
work and recreation than either the "doubtful" or the violators; and
both the "best" and the "doubtful" indicate less psychopathic devia-
tion than the violators. The differences on the remainder of the
forty-nine traits were not significant.

The responses of one hundred of the "best" parolees, se-
lected at random, were compared with the responses of one hundred
of the violators, also selected at random, for each of the items on each
of the inventories, by use of the critical ratio of differences between
two proportions. There were 132 items that met the criterion of sig-
nificance adopted for this study, a level of significance of .93 (7%)
or higher.

All the complete sets of answer sheets for the sample popula-
tion were scored using those items. The mean total score of the
successful parolees exceeded the total scores of 82 percent of the
violators. The value of various cuteoff scores was demonstrated.
For example, 73.3 percent of those who were successful on parole
had scores of 40 or more, and 72.4 percent of those with scores of
40 or more were successful, while 60.4 percent of the violators had
Scores of less than 40.

The biserial coefficient of correlation between the scores of
the successful and nonsuccessful parolees and parole outcome was
'638 with a standard error of .044. The Kuder and Richardson re-
1iability coefficient was .872 and the reliability coefficient, according
to a formula developed by Froelich, was .895.

The results of this study establish, within the limitations im-
pOSEd by the techniques used in the study, that there are differences

iii

in the thinking of prDSpective successful and nonsuccessful parolees
at the time they are being considered for parole that can be mea-
sured objectively, and that these differences do have relationship to

parole outcome.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is sincerely grateful to Dr. Victor H. Noll for his
constant encouragement and advice in the planning, organization, and
writing of this report. Dr. Noll, the writer's major professor, has
freely given suggestions and constructive criticisms which have made
possible the completion of this study. The writer would also like to
thank Dr. Harry Sundwall and Dr. James S. Karslake for their help—
ful suggestions in regard to the procedure of the study and the sta-
tistical analysis of the data. He is also indebted to Dr. Walter F.
Johnson for his assistance in the formulation of the study and his gui-
dance during the early stages of the collection of data. The writer
also thanks Dr. Cecil V. Millard for his continued interest, his en-
couragement, and his helpful suggestions.

Thanks are further extended to Earnest C. Brooks, formerly
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, and to Gus Har-
rison, present Director of the Department, who gave permission for
the study of the inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department and
for the use of the facilities of that Department. The writer is also
grateful to Warden William H. Barman, Warden Dr. Garrett Heyns,
and Superintendent C. D. Miles, for permitting the use of the facili-
ties of their respective institutions and making available for study
the inmates under their jurisdiction. George Bacon, Deputy Warden in
Chal‘ge of the Trusty Division at the State Prison of Southern Mich-
igan, was also very gracious in permitting the inmates under his
jurisdiction to take part in the study. Mr. James Silby, Institutional
Parole Officer at the Jackson institution, contributed greatly to the
Study by aiding in the administrative routine during the early stages

V

of the collection of data. Two of Mr. Silby's inmate clerks contrib-
uted much of their time and initiative in the practical administration
during the early stages of the study. The writer cannot express too

greatly his appreciation to these clerks for their able assistance.

All of the parole officers in the state of Michigan contributed :-
to the study by rating the parolees included in the study who were
under their supervision. The parole officers were very prompt and
sincere in making these ratings, and many of them have expressed
continued interest and encouragement in the study. ,4;
it

Finally, the writer wishes to express his appreciation to his
wife, Marge Thurston, for her encouragement, patience, sacrifice,
and assistance.

To all of these and to the many others who have encouraged
or added a little to the study, the writer wishes to extend his most

since re g ratitude .

vi

 

TABLE OF CONTENT 5

CHAPTER

I.

II.

 

INTRODUCTION .........................
Purpose of Study ......................
Outline of Procedure ....................
Justification of Study ....................
Definitions of Terms Used ................
Preview of Organization .................

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............
Previous Parole Prediction Research ........

Early studies ............ ' ...........
A Wisconsin study ...................
A New Jersey study ............ ‘ ......
An Illinois study .....................
The first Glueck study ................
A Minnesota study ...................
The second Illinois study ...............
A study of federal prisoners ............
Two more Glueck studies ..............
The Attorney General's report ...........
An Alabama study ...................
Another Illinois study .................
Another Wisconsin study ...............
The most recent study ................
A different approach ..................
Comparison of factors .................
Summary ............................

vii

QNO‘UJN

ll
11
I3
15
18
23
29
32
38
40
44
48
53
55
58
61
63
68

CHAPTER Page

111. PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE POPULATION ...... 71
Procedure ........................... 71
Sample Population ...................... 89

Summary ............................ 106 1""

IV. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDIZED INVENTORY I

FACTORS ............................. 108 I

Summary ............................ 137 I

V. THE ITEMS AND THEIR VALIDITY ........... 139 I

The Item Analysis ..................... 139 L
Validity ............................. 156
Reliability ........................... 162
Summary ............................ 164

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... l 65
Summary ............................ 165

The procedure ...................... 165

The findings ........................ 170

Conclusions .......................... 181
Recommendations for Application ........... 185
Recommendations for Further Study ......... 187

BIB LIOG RAPHY ............................... 190
APPENDIXES ................................. 195

Appendix A. The Certificate of Parole of the State
of Michigan's Department of Correc-
tions Including the Conditions of Parole . . . 196

Appendix B. The Inventories Used in the Present
Investigation ...................... 197

viii

 

 

 

Appendix C .

Page

Critical Ratios of the Difference

Between the Percentage of Re3ponses

by Successful Parolees and the Per-

centage of Responses by Violators on

the Items Included in the Guilford-

Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN,

an Inventory of Factors STDCR, the

Johnson Temperament Analysis, and

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory ........................ 196

ix

TABLE
I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII .

VIII .

IX.

XI.

XIII .

XIV
xv,

LIST OF TABLES

A Summary of the Findings of Several
Investigators in Regard to the Relationship

of Various Factors to Parole Outcome .........

Parole Service Prior to Violation for 529
Violators During the First Nine Months

of 1950 ...............................

Population Figures for Michigan's Penal

Institutions on October 3, 1952 ...............

Release Through Parole from Michigan‘s

Penal Institutions during 1951 ...............

Classification of Parolees into Three
Categories According to Parole Adjustment

or Type of Violation ......................

Total Number of Inventories Completed for

Each of the Three Categories of Parolees .......

A Comparison of Sample Population
According to Offense for Which Serving

at Time of Parole .......................

The Significance of the Differences in
the Success Rates of Various Groups

of Offenders ............................
Sample Population by Institutions .............
Sample Population by Race .................
Sample Population by Age at Time of Parole .....
Sample Population by Intelligence .............
Sample Population According to Time Served .....

Sample Population According to Previous Record . .

Comparison of Sample Population Scores with
Norms on the Guilford-Martin Inventory of

Factors GAMIN .........................

Page

80

84

85

90

91

92

95
97
98
99
101
102
104

109

r.- ..._a-.v_ . .5-.." .-fi_-..__-. -fi

TABLE
XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX .

XX.

XXI .

XXII .

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV,

XXVI.

Comparison of Sample Population Scores with
Norms on the Guilford Inventory of Factors
STDCR ..........................

. Comparison of Sample Population Scores with

Norms on the California Mental Health
Analysis .........................

Comparison of Sample Population Scores with
Norms on the Johnson Temperament Analysis

Comparison of Sample Population Scores with
Norms on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory ................

Comparisons of the Means and Standard
Deviations of the Three Parole Categories
for the Guilford-Martin Inventory of

Factors GAMIN ....................

The Differences Between the Means of the
Three Parole Categories for the GAMIN with
the Resultant Critical Ratios and Levels of
Significance ............... s .......

Comparisons of the Means and Standard
Deviations of the Three Parole Categories
for the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR

The Differences Between the Means of the
Three Parole Categories for the STDCR
with the Resultant, Critical Ratios and
Levels of Significance ................

Comparisons of the Means and Standard
Deviations of the Three Parole Categories
for the Johnson Temperament Analysis . . . .

The Differences Between the Means of the
Three Parole Categories for the JTA with
the Resultant Critical Ratios and Levels of
Significance .......................

Comparisons of the Means and Standard
Deviations of the Three Parole Categories
for the California Mental Health Analysis . .

xi

00000

00000

111

112

116

117

120

121

124

125

128

m w

TABLE Page

XXVII. The Differences Between the Means of the
Three Parole Categories for the CMHA
with the Resultant Critical Ratios and
Levels of Significance ..................... 129

XXVIII. Comparisons of the Means and Standard
Deviations of the Three Parole Categories
for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory .............................. 132

XXIX. The Differences Between the Means of the
Three Parole Categories for the MMPI
with the Resultant Critical Ratios and
Levels of Significance ..................... 133

XXX. The Number and Percent of Items with
Significant Differences from Each
Inventory ............................ , . . 144

XXXI. The Weights Assigned to Items According
to the Critical Ratio of Differences in
Percentage of Responses ................... 158

XXXII. The Weighted Scores Made by 384 Parolees,
Comparing Successful and Nonsuccessful, on
132 Items with Significant Differences .......... 160

XXXIII. The Means and Standard Deviations of Five
Parole Categories According to Age at
Time of Parole ......................... 173

XXXIV. The Mean Intelligence Quotients and Standard
Deviations of Five Parole Categories .......... 173

XXXV. The Means, Standard Deviations, and
Medians of Five Parole Categories
According to Time Served .................. 175

xii

Agrd. .Mr -q‘

_ A ._.u -“ u.—_-_ - A

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Study

. , t-.. "WI

It has frequently been reported that 95 percent of the individ-

M“. o a“.

A i-

uals who enter penal institutions are eventually released. Parole has
long been recognized as the best available means for effecting this
release. It is inherent in the philosophy of parole that the individual
should be placed on parole when he is most ready to take his place
as a worth-while member of the community. To this end the empha-
sis is being placed on the reformation or rehabilitation of the indi-
vidual, rather than on the punitive aSpects of incarceration. The basic
assumption in modern penology is that incarceration should prepare
the individual for his eventual return to society, should help him and
teach him to be a better citizen, a worth-while member of a com-
munity.

The effectiveness of the correctional process should result in
differences in the thinking of those individuals who are ready for
Parole and those who- are not ready. Many of the authorities in pe-
nOlogy feel there are differences in the inmate's attitudinal make-up
which would also indicate readiness for parole. Authors of books on
criminology state that the individual's attitudes toward authority and
toWard society, his way of reacting to life's problem, his reactions
to Stress, and his fundamental temperament, are all basic considera-
tions for parolability. They speak of the emotionally mature indi-

Vidual. the stable person, as being ready for parole.

 

The sum effect of these factors should result in differences
of thinking in the individuals being considered for parole which would
indicate the possibility of parole success or failure. A technique for
measuring such differences in their thinking and relating these differ-
ences to parole outcome would aid considerably in determining when,
or if, the individual becomes ready for parole, in terms of his men-
tal readiness.

It is the writer's purpose, in this study, to test one means of
discovering whether or not there are differences in the thinking of
successful and nonsuccessful parolees, and if such differences are
discovered, whether or not the extent of such differences will have
value as a predictor of parole success or failure.

During the past twenty-five years there have been deve10ped
and standardized many instruments whose purpose is the measurement
of various aspects of personality and ‘adjustment. It is the writer's
intention to use some of these standardized inventories to discover
differences in the thinking of successful and nonsuccessful parolees.
Therefore, the hypotheses to be tested by this study are:

1. There are differences in the thinking of successful and non-
successful parolees which can be measured objectively by available
standardized invento rie s .

2. The nature and extent of such differences will have some

reliability and validity as predictors of parole success or failure.
Outline of Procedure

Although the procedure of the study is discussed in detail in
Chapter III, a brief outline at this time is necessary for the intro-
duction of the study. Five personality and adjustment inventories were

”189th for administration to a group of inmates about to go on

 

parole, so that measurements of their thinking at time of parole could
be obtained. The five inventories selected were the Guilford-Martin
Inventory of Factors GAMIN, Guilford's Inventory of Factors STDCR,
the Johnson Temperament Analysis, the California Mental Health
Analysis, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. In
selecting these inventories an attempt was made to get valid and

reliable instruments that would measure a wide range of factors or

 

traits in the most economical manner, both monetarily and chronolog-

ically. .
After an adequate waiting period the successful parolees and

the parole violators were identified. A more exacting classification

resulted in three parole categories: the ”best" of the successful

parolees; the "doubtful" group of the successful parolees; and the

violators. An indication of the differences in the thinking of these

three parole categories was obtained by applying the Critical Ratio

test of significance to the differences in the responses, as indicated

by subtest mean scores, of the three groups. A further indication of

differences in the thinking of successful and nonsuccessful parolees

was obtained by an item analysis. The item analysis indicated sig-

nificant differences between the percentage of reSponses of successful

and nonsuccessful parolees on some of the items. The relationship

of these differences to parole outcome was determined by comparing

the scores of the successful and nonsuccessful parolees for the items

that had significant differences.
Justification of Study
The possibility of predicting parole success or failure has

appealed to many persons. There have been several studies in this

field. most of which resulted in the preparation of experience tables,

 

much like the actuarial tables of insurance companies. The majority
of the factors included in these tables was obtained from the parole

files of the subjects and is largely in the nature of preincarceration
factors. If the aim of the corrective process is the rehabilitation of

the inmate, then a prediction technique should give considerable weight

to the results of that process. The predictive techniques so far de- If
vised include only one or two factors directly related to the effects
of the individual's incarceration. Authors of textbooks on criminology '
and persons faced with the problem of determining parolability have :
come to believe that predictive techniques must include some deter- '5'

mination of the accumulative effects of institutionalization which have
taken place within the individual.

The experience tables have given releasing authorities a great
deal of information regarding group characteristics of successful and
nonsuccessful parolees and have made parole selection much more
meaningful than a mere understanding of human nature. However, the
information so obtained is based on group experience and can have
little meaning for the individual, per se. The parole board or other
releasing authority must still relate the information from the experi-
ence tables to the prospective parolee and then base the final deci-
sion, in part at least, on a judgment of the individual's thinking as it
expresses his attitudes, his perception of his role in society, his
Philosophy of life, his temperament, and other aspects of his psycho-
logical make-up. There is a very urgent need for a supplemental
aid Such as an objective means of determining the inmate's mental
readiness for parole.

The writer would like to point out, at this time, that the hoped-
for reSults of this study would serve as a supplement to all other in-
formélliion obtained about the prospective parolee, including the infor-

matiOn from the experience tables. The factors included in the

‘1 '.Ili"l II

.n.

 

. I. J {E}: “A.
1...... , issuan

experience tables will be discussed in detail in the review of the lit-
erature, as background information pertinent to this study. However,

it is not the purpose of this study to validate those factors or dis-
cover additional factors of that nature. Rather, it is hoped that this
study will result in a technique that will measure the extent of the
inmate's present thinking as it reflects itself in a readiness for parole,
at the time he is being considered for such release.

Knowledge of this type would be exceptionally meaningful in
identifying those cases which might be released prior to the minimum
sentence. The writer does not feel that a justification for early pa-
role is necessary to this study. One who views this problem unemo—
tionally and objectively will realize the logic of releasing as early as
possible the individual who has "learned his lesson" and who can be
considered as being no longer dangerous to society. This type of
knowledge would also aid in identifying the parole violators and re-
peated offenders who have been returned to prison for some time and
for whom there may no longer be a need for continued incarceration.
Although previous incarcerations did not prove benefiCial in those
cases, it might well be that the present sentence has made the dif—
ference. An objective means of determining this fact would be a
valuable aid in deciding whether it is necessary to pass or continue
beyond the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, which is used
almost exclusively in Michigan.

Burgess and Sellin expressed the need of continued study in
this area and the possibility of the use of standardized tests in the
determination of parolability. In their foreword to Ohlin's recent
work, they stated:

Everyone recognizes that the prisoner's attitude is impor-
taJlt. Especially significant are clinical studies to find out the
Prisoner's motivations and any personality problems which may
intfirfere with his reformation. Intensive study is needed to probe

into his subjective life. Such study is most rewarding when the
man first enters prison and during the period preceding his be-
coming a member of the prison community. A favorable situa-
tion is the diagnostic depot where he is detained for study in or—
der to determine the most suitable placement for him in the insti-
tution. At present also there are a growing number of personality
tests applicable to the study of criminals. Statistical predictive
instruments in their present form do not take account of the data
obtainable by such interviews and by personality tests. This ma-
terial should be used in conjunction with the findings of statistical
prediction.1

A few pages later they ask:

What is the predictive value of personality tests of the
available standardized forms? May not personality tests espe-
cially suited to the study of the criminal and of his rehabilitation
be devised?2

Definition of Terms Used

”Parolability." Experience and research have taught that
there are a great many factors which are likely to determine the
probability of the inmate's making a successful adjustment on pa-
role. The weight or importance of each of. these factors must be
determined on an individual basis. Parolability is the term commonly
used to denote this complex of factors.

"Technical violation." Before an inmate is paroled, he signs
the Certificate of Parole, a copy of which he retains as his .own. This
document contains a list of parole conditions which have been read to

him and discussed with him. If he violates any of these conditions,

Ernest W. Burgess and Thorsten Sellin, Introduction,
Lloyd E. Ohlin, Selection for Parole (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1951), p. 15.

 

2 .
Ibid., p. 17.

he is in technical violation of his parole. A duplication of this part
of the parole certificate is reproduced in Appendix A.

"Recidivist." A repeating offender, one who has been com-
mitted to a penal institution for the second or more times is labeled
a recidivist, in penological literature. In general usage this term
refers to anyone who relapses into a former state or condition.

"Offense." The term "offense" is usually used to denote the
crime or criminal act with which an individual has been charged. In
parole prediction the term is sometimes used to denote the category
which includes a comparison of the crimes or charges for which indi-
viduals have been committed to penal institutions.

”Alienist." One skilled in the study or treatment of insanity
and mental disorders was termed an alienist in earlier times. The
use of the term has been largely replaced by the term "psychiatrist"

in present usage.
Preview of Organization

Chapter 11 contains a review of the literature pertinent to this
study and a further justification for the study. The procedure and
techniques involved in the study are discussed in Chapter III with
pertinent information regarding the sample population. Five standard-
ized tests were used in this study. The subtest scores of success-
ful and nonsuccessful parolees were analyzed by use of the critical
ratio. The results of this analysis are discussed in Chapter-IV.
The items of the five inventories were subjected to an item analy-
sis. The item analysis, the items for which significant differences
were found, their application, and their validation are discussed in
Chapter V. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations are

presented in Chapter VI.

 

. ‘ I I. .

 

 

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A little over 100 years ago the concept of parole for adult
offenders was first being introduced to the United States. Parole
originated in Europe, where it was known as conditional liberation,
and was used as early as 1835 in Spain. However, the concept of
parole was not generally accepted in the United States for some time,
and it was not until just before the turn of the century that legislav
tures began passing parole laws. Parole, used in a manner compar-
able to present-day parole administration, had its beginning in this
country in 1876 when the Elmira Reformatory in the state of New
York was first opened. The statute establishing the Elmira Reforma-
tory also provided for release by parole. By 1900 twenty states had
accepted parole, and by 1910 thirty—two states and the federal govern—
ment had adopted a parole system.1 Release figures for 1953 show
that there were paroles during that year in every state.2 During 1953,

54.8 percent of all releases from penal institutions were by parole.

 

 

1
United States Department of Justice, The Attorney Gen-
eral's Survey of Release Procedures, Vol. 4, ”Parole" (Washington:
Government Printing-Office, 1939), pp. 1-21.

 

 

United States Department of Justice, National Prisoner
Statistics, No. 11 (Washington: Government Printing Office, July,
1954), p. 4.

 

3
Ibid., p. 4.

 

9

In Michigan, parole accounted for 81.9 percent of the total releases
during the same year. ‘

The reader may wonder why Michigan's parole rate is so
much above the national average. Actually, Michigan was seventh
highest in the nation in percentage of total releases by parole in
1953. Washington was highest with 99.5 percent, followed by New
Hampshire, Colorado, Ohio, Utah, and California, in that order.

At the other extreme are South Carolina with 5.1 percent and Okla-
home with 7.5 percent. There were only two states in the entire
South that were at or above the national average.5 A major reason
for such large differences in type of release from penal institutions
is found in the type of sentence employed by the variOus states. In
Michigan, for example, all prison sentences are of an indeterminate
nature, with a minimum and a maximum, except life sentences and
contempt of court sentences. Consequently, most of the releases are
by parole. On the other hand, most of the southern states, and some
of the others, make quite extensive use of the definite sentence, a
rather short sentence much like-a jail term. In many of these states
an individual convicted of an offense for which he would go to prison
in Michigan is sentenced to a county work camp for a number of
months or years.

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the pros and cons
of parole. The fact remains that 95 percent of the inmates are going

to be released under one plan or the other, and the question is

 

4
The writer is indebted to Ayres Raymond, Director of Re-

search for the Department of Corrections, and to Harold Kachelski,
Assistant Director of Research, for these and all other figures re-
lated to Michigan's parolees.

United States Department of Justice, National Prisoner
Statistics, op. cit., pp. 3—4.

 

 

 

 

10

whether or not it is better to release them outright or to have them
under supervision for a period and to help them in their adjustment
to society. The salient fact for this study is that parole is the most
common form of release in the United States today, and as such there
is need for studies that will aid paroling authorities in their decisions
regarding the parolability of an individual.

Since the concept of parole is so young in this country, it is
not surprising, then, that the research in the prediction of parole out-
come has all been within the past thirty years. This chapter will
review the parole prediction research reported in the literature. The
review will discuss all the studies which have appeared in that liter-
ature, so far as the writer has been able to locate them, reporting
parole prediction investigations or investigations in regard to factors
~re1ated to parole success or failure.

In most of the studies that follow, a given factor is divided
into subgroups or subclasses so that varying degrees of relationship
to parole success or failure might be determined. In the factor of
"misconduct during incarceration," for example, there might be just
two subgroups; i.e., none and misconduct. On the other hand, a fac-
tor such as "age at time of parole" might have several subgroups
such as under 18, 18 to 20, 21 to 22, 23 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 35,
36 to 40, and over 40. The subgroupings are decided upon by the
individual investigators and sometimes an author reports trying sev—
eral groupings in an attempt to obtain the most significant results.

In some cases, however, the author reports his findings without giving

detailed information regarding his subgroups.

 

 

 

11

Previous Parole Prediction Research

6
Early studies. In 1923 Warner published the results of a

 

study of the records on parole of ex-inmates of the Massachusetts
Reformatory. He examined the records of 300 parolees who had been
successful parolees, 300 who had violated parole, and 86 inmates who
were not granted parole but were required to serve their maximum
terms within the reformatory. Warner stated that an inmate was
declared a success if he did not violate the conditions of his parole.
Warner investigated the factors considered by the Board of Paroles
in reaching its decisions, and the potential value of other items avail-
able to the board but not utilized. There was a total of sixty-four
factors investigated. His conclusions were that only recividism and
offense are true criteria, and that the only item not then used which
might have prognostic value was the alienist's report.

Warner's study appears to be the first of its kind published
and it created a great deal of interest. A few months after the ap-
pearance of Warner's study, Hart7 published a criticism of the tech-
niques used by Warner. Hart pointed out that no tests of significance
had been applied in Warner's study. Hart then used Warner's data
and tested the significance of relationship by computing the critical
ratio of the difference between percentages, using the percentage for
the factor and the average success rate. This was a technique which

he admitted had not yet come into general use except among

Sam B. Warner, "Factors Determining Parole From the
M‘l‘ssatzhusetts Reformatory," Journal of Crimila Law and Criminol‘
23X: 14:172-207. August, 1923.

 

C _ Hornell Hart, "Predicting Parole Success," Journal of
3% Law and Criminolpfl,l4:405-4l4, November, 1923.

 

—-H-h‘ do”
.

‘7”“

12

professional statisticians. Hart next made a table of factors signifi-
cant at the 1 percent level, arranged in order of decreasing success
rate. The average rate of success was 49.75 percent. The factors
found by Hart to be significant at the 1 percent level, with the suc-

cess rate of the individuals with that factor in their histories, follow:

1. Partly support unnamed persons ...... 88%
2. Convicted of assault and battery ...... 77%
3. Occupation "none" ................ 75%
4. No previous criminal record ......... 73%
5. Accidental offender ............... 72%
6. Steadily employed ................ 61%
7. "Responsible" and "normal" offender . . 58%
8. Men using cigarettes .............. 44%
9. Men convicted of fraud ...... , ..... 43%
10. "Bad" associates .......... ’ ...... 4 3% '
11. Men convicted of larceny ........... 43%
12. Six or more misconducts ........... 41%
13. Served one or more jail terms ....... 40%
14. Men convicted of breaking and entering . 39%
15. Parents own property .............. 139%
16. Reported regular church attendance . . . . 38%
17. Reform school records ............. 36%
18. Uses drugs ..................... 22%
19. Mother drank ................... 20%
20. Father served jail sentence ......... 6%
21. Mother arrested or jailed ........... 0%

Hart Suggested that:

In order to profit by past experience as summarized in
table I and as reinforced by other available data, so as in the
future to parole as large a fraction as possible of the men who
Will succeed and as small a fraction as possible of the men who

____ ___ __._ -L, .1

13

will violate their paroles, all of the information under the ques-
tions which have been proved to be significant should be combined
into a prognostic score for each man coming up for parole.8

Hart's suggestion of a prognostic score and his procedure of deter-
mining the significance of the difference between the success rate of
various factors and the average success rate, or in some cases the
violation rate or failure rate, has been the basis for the procedure in

many of the more recent investigations.

A Wisconsin study. Apparently the articles by Warner and

 

Hart served as impetus to additional studies. Although the first of
the additional studies was not reported until four years after Hart's
report, there were four investigations from four different localities
reported within a few years of each other. The first of these was a
report by Witmer9 dealing with Wisconsin subjects.

Her sample included parolees from the Wisconsin State Prison
and the Wisconsin State Reformatory. The prison sample included
214 successful parolees and 116 violators who were paroled between
June of 1918 and February of 1921. The reformatory sample con-
sisted of 229 successful parolees and 48 violators paroled between
June of 1921 and January of 1925. The criterion of success, as de—
scribed by Witmer, was abiding by the rules laid down by the parole
board for conduct on parole, as indicated by not being returned to
penal institutions during the parole period. Witmer found that 88
percent of the violations were within six months after parole. She

also reported that half of those who remained on parole longer than

 

8
Ibid., p. 411.

Helen Leland Witmer, "Some Factors in Success or Failure
on Parole," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 182384-403,
November, 1927.

 

14

six months before violating did so by committing new offenses. The
majority of the violations within the six-month period were technical
violations.

All of Witmer's data were obtained from the parole files. No

tests of significance were cited and, apparently, her conclusions of

I

"little," "slight," and ”greater" differences were the results of a

comparison of the percentages of the violation rate of the subgroups
Studied in each factor. Those factors that Witmer concluded showed
little difference in rate of violation were:

1. Previous occupation.

2. Lengths of sentence.

3. Marks received in reformatory (demerit marks).

The factors resulting in slight differences were:

1. Age at time of parole. The younger parolees had a higher
rate of violation. .

2. Marital condition. The single parolees had a higher rate
of violation.

3. Use of alcohol. Witmer found a slightly higher violation
rate for those who were reported to use alcohol. I

4. Previous record. Those with no previous record had the
highest parole success rate.

5. Offense causing commitment. Those individuals convicted
0f Offenses against property had the highest violation rate. Fifty
percent of the failures had been convicted for burglary, forgery,
and larceny.

6. Grades in school (reformatory only). Those with higher
grades made slightly better parole records.

7. Type of community to which paroled (reformatory only).
Farm placements resulted in high rate of violation, usually ab-

scondance. Paroles to Milwaukee also resulted in a higher

15

rate of violation. Parolees in small cities made the best rec-
ords.

Greatest differences in violation rate were found in three
factors, which were.

1. Superintendent's recommendation. A favorable recommenda-
tion by the superintendent showed a ”high correlation" with parole
success.

2. Occupation on parole (reformatory only). Those who had
worked on farms previously and were returned to farms had a high
Success rate. There were more successes for those who found em-
ployment that was simpler than the employment previous to incarcer-
ation.

3. Monthly earnings. The violation rate decreased as the
monthly earnings increased.

Witmer concluded her report with the finding that only 3 per-
cent of the total number of parolees violated by committing new of-
fenses and that very few of these were of a serious nature. Witmer
was not attempting to establish a prediction technique and made no

conclusions in that regard.

A New Jersey study. A year later Bordenlo reported at study
that he said was inspired by the articles of Warner and Hart. His
subjects were 263 consecutive parolees, aged 17 to 35, from a re-
formatory for young men. At the time of publication, Borden was
Dire ctor of Statistics of the Department of Institutions and Agencies

of New Jersey. However, the name of the institution is not given.

 

Howard G. Borden, "Factors for Predicting Parole Suc-
cess," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 19:328-336, No-
Vember, 1928.

16

These subjects were paroled between July 1, 1923, and June 30, 1924.
The data were collected in August of 1925. Borden describes the suc-
cessful as those who were still succeeding on parole over a year
after release or who had completed parole. The failures are de-
scribed as those who were returned to an institution for either a mis-
demeanor or a felony. Absconders are not included in either group
and Borden makes no mention of technical violators.

Borden's findings are reported in a table which shows "the
coefficient of correlation with parole success using no correction for
coarseness of distribution." He listed each factor and followed it
with an item in parentheses, as listed below. However, he makes no
further elaboration of the meaning of the items in the parentheses;
consequently, it is assumed that the coefficients of correlation indi-
cated for the factors listed in the direction of the items indicated by
the parentheses. Support for this assumption is found in Borden's
discussion of intelligence, which is quoted below. However, because
Borden does not make his meaning clear, there would be serious
question regarding any of the writer's conclusions based on Borden's
study. Therefore, Borden's findings are reported, but no conclusions

will be drawn from his study in the remainder of this chapter.

Age at parole (Older) ....................... ..021
Nationality (Native white) ..................... .047
Mental age (Lower M.A.) ..................... .131
Intelligence (Lower) ........................ .164
Time lost for offenses in the institution (More) ..... .027
Conduct in institution (Better) ............... 1. . .030
Industrial rating (Lower) ..................... .138
<Erade of training in institution (Higher) .......... .006
Literacy at admission (Lower) ................. .085
Literacy at parole (Lower) ................... .072
Skill required for occupation recommended (Less) . . . .033
Al'nenable vs. uncooperative (Amenable) ........... .118
ACtive vs. passive (Passive) .................. .094

Stable vs. unstable (Stable) ................... .023

l7

Defective delinquent vs. not (Def. delinquent) ....... .048
Judgement in parole plans (Good) ............... .058
Psychologist's prognosis (Favorable) ............. .161
Percentage of time employed before (Less time) . . . . .115
Arrests (Fewer) ........................... .105
Probations (Fewer) ......................... .072
Commitments (Fewer) ....................... .202
Times at Boys' Home (Fewer) ................. .068
Times at this institution (Fewer) ............... .062
Months in this institution (Longer) .............. .011
Pay on parole (More) ....................... .046
Parole job allied to training (Not allied) .......... .011
Level of job vs. ability (Above) ................ .018
Times worked on parole (Steadier) .............. .419
Urban vs. rural (Rural) ...................... .054

Borden points out that several factors can probably be grouped and
considered as single factors such as mental age, intelligence, in-
dustrial rating, literacy at admission, literacy at parole, and skill
for job, all measurements of intelligence. He adds that "the entire
group gives evidence that the lower the intelligence the more likely
a boy is to succeed." In regard to this finding Borden states:

The rather radical conclusion that intelligence has a neg-
ative correlation with success is partially borne out by indepen-
dent investigations. Carl Murchison points out (in the Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, August, 1924) that the intelli-
gence level of prisoners in the penal institution is superior to
that found in the army tests. It seems highly desirable that one
exact investigation should be made on this subject, extending if
possible outside of the institutional group, for if this conclusion
is confirmed our whole train of thought must be revised.11

Another of Borden's findings should be discussed. In the factor "Per-
centage of time employed before" the item in the parentheses is
"Less time," apparently indicating that the resulting comparatively
high Coefficient of correlation would be interpreted as meaning that
th°se individuals with the lesser percentage of time employed before

\

11 ,
Ibid., pp. 330-331.

18

commitment had a fair degree of relationship with parole success.
Borden did not discuss this factor, but apparently did not feel that
his finding in this regard was unusual. However, if the writer is
correct in this interpretation of Borden's findings, then this is the
only study, of those investigating degree of previous employment,
where the findings of regularity of employment were not highly re-
lated to parole success.

Borden arrived at three variables as having the highest pre-

dictive value. They were "Previous commitments," "Psychologist's

prognosis," and "Diagnosis of intelligence." The multiple correlation

with success was .407, indicating, Borden said, "that prediction is

possible with some slight degree of accuracy even with the data at

hand."

An Illinois study. About 1927, the governor of the state of

 

Illinois asked the presidents of each of the state's three large uni-
versities to appoint a member from each of their faculties to com-
pose a committee to make a study of the operation in Illinois of the
indeterminate sentence and of parole. This report was organized

1111:0 five main parts. Burgess prepared Part IV which is the part

related to the problem of parole prediction. Burgess studied the

1'e<:.ords of 1,000 men paroled from the Illinois State Reformatory
at Pontiac, 1,000 men paroled from the Southern Illinois Penitentiary
at Menard, and 1,000 men paroled from the Illinois State Reformatory

at Joliet. The cases were consecutive numbers of those released

Ernest W. Burgess, "Factors Determining Success or
Fa-ilure on Parole," Part IV, in the Workings of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law and the Parole System in Illinois, by Andrew A. Bruce
a'll'd others, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 19:214-286,
1March, 1928.

19

from parole, dating backward in time from December 31, 1924. All
had been released at least two and one-half years when the study was

made. The average rate of violation for all institutions was 25.7 per-

cent.

The study was undertaken to discover what specific facts
about the man and his past history as stated in the record could be
related to the fact that he had, or had not, violated parole. The cri-
terion of violation, as described by Burgess, was that the individual
had been returned to the institution for violation of the parole regula-
tions or that he had received .a new conviction. Conversely, "making
good" meant observance of the letter of the parole regulations and
refraining from crime until discharged from parole. Twenty-two
factors were studied. The factors and Burgess' conclusions in re-

gard to each factor are quoted from the original below:

1. Offense named in indictment. At all the institutions
men convicted of sex offense, murder and manslaughtershow a
relatively low rate for violation of parole while those convicted
of fraud, forgery and (except for Pontiac) burglary have dispro-
portionately high rate for violation.

2. Number of associates in crime resulting in conviction.
The most significant finding from a consideration of the relation
of parole violation to- number of associates was the high violation
rate (except for Menard) where the offender had no associates,
and the surprisingly low violation rate for all three institutions
when the convict had three or more associates.

3. National or racial origin. All institutions seemed to
show the tendency to find the smallest rate of violations among
more recent immigrants like the Italian, Polish and Lithuanian,
and to disclose the highest rates of violation among the older
immigrants like the Irish, British, and German.

4. Parental status. The percentages of violations of men
coming from "broken homes" were higher than the average, while
those of the men coming from the better type of home were sig-
nificantly lower.

20

5. Marital state. The two prisons show a violation rate
higher than the average for single men, and lower than the aver-
age for married men. At the reformatory, on the contrary, the
married youths exhibit a slightly higher rate of parole violation
than the average.

6. Type of offender. The run of the figures clinches the
point that the first offender is a "better risk" than the occasional
offender, and the occasional offender is a "better risk" than
either the habitual or professional criminal. Moreover, the larger
half of the first and occasional offenders are technical and minor
violators of parole, while the great majority of violations among
the habitual and professional criminals are the result of detection
in new crimes.

7. The criminal as a social type. The farm boy and the
newly arrived immigrant both seem disposed to make satisfactory
adjustments under parole. But the hobo, the ne'er-do-well from
the city and the older drug addict, all are liable to become pa-
role violators.

8. Size of community. No significant variation from the
average in percentage of violations was discovered except a uni-
formly low rate for those whose homes had been in the open
country.

9. Resident or transient in community when arrested.
The parole defaulter rate was smaller than the average for ac-
tual residents of the community, but much larger for transients
convicted of crime.

10. Type of neighborhood. A steady increase in violation
rates from residential districts through immigrant areas, fur-
nished apartments, rooming house districts, to Hobohemia and the
criminal underworld.

11. Statement of trial judge and prosecuting attorney with
reference to recommendation for or against leniency. That this
statement should be given consideration may be seen by compar-
ing the violation rate of recommendations and protests as 16.9%
compared with 46.7% at Pontiac; 23.7% as compared with 27.6%
for Menard, and 16.4% as compared with 31.2% for Joliet.

12. Whether or not commitment was upon acceptance of
lesser plea. There seemed to be no appreciably higher rate of
violation than where the paroled man had been convicted on the
original charge.

 

21

13. Nature and length of sentence imposed. The striking
conclusion is the low violation rate for flat sentences and (except
at Pontiac) for the heavier penalties of 3 to 20 years and 1 year
to life.

14. Months of sentence served. In general, the findings
were that the longer the period served, the higher the violation
rate. "

15. Previous criminal record. At both Menard and Joliet
a previous reformatory and penitentiary record show high rates
of parole violation, while the lack of a criminal record, for all
institutions, exhibits a lower violation rate.

16. Previous work record. The very low percentage of
parole violation for men with record of regular employment is
eloquent in its testimony to regular habits of work as a factor
of rehabilitation.

17. Punishment record in prison. At both penitentiaries
the inmates who were punished by solitary confinement had an
unusually high violation rate, particularly in comparison with the
low violation rates of those without recorded punishments.

18. Age at time of parole. The youngest and the oldest
have the lowest violation rates according to this analysis.

19. Intelligence according to psychiatric examination.
The most significant finding from this analysis is, probably, the
indication that those of inferior intelligence are as likely, per-
haps more likely, to observe their parole agreement than are
those of average and superior intelligence. ,

20. Personality type according to psychiatric examination.14
The figures from Joliet, and to a lesser degree from Pontiac,
seem to indicate that the paroled man with egocentric personality
pattern faces greater difficulty in social readjustment. Curiously
enough, the emotionally unstable seem to have the least difficulty
of keeping a clean record under supervision.

l3
Doesn't indicate how the intelligence rating was deter-
Infined.

4
. Only three personality types indicated: egocentric; so-
clally inadequate; and emotionally unstable.

22

21. Psychiatric prognosis.15 For Pontiac and Joliet,
the psychiatric prognosis gives highly satisfactory results. Me-
nard did not have the services of a full time psychiatrist, which
may account for the fact that the difference is not as great at
that institution.

Burges simply cited figures for Cook County and for the rest
of the state as a whole in his discussion of the twenty-second factor,
"County from which committed." There was no discussion of sig-
nificance or relationship to parole outcome.

There was no mention, in the report, of the use of tests of
significance. Apparently, the conclusions were determined by inSpec-
tion and by comparison of the violation rate of the subgroups for
each factor to the average violation rate for each institution.

In regard to age at time of parole, Witmer had found that
the younger parolees had a higher rate of violation. However, Bur-
gess reports that the youngest and the oldesthad the lowest violation
rate. Burgess' findings support Hart in that the absence of miscon-
dtlct is indicative of a high rate of success. However, Witmer's
Study showed that demerit marks for misconduct showed little dif-
ference in violation rate.

It is noted that Hart, Witmer, and now Burgess all reported
that the individual with no prior record was more likely to succeed
on Parole.

Burgess devised an expectancy table indicating the expected
rate of parole violation and nonviolation for each of the three institu-
tions according to number of factors on which the inmate was above
the average for the 1,000 cases of the institution. He allowed one

point for each factor in which the inmate fell into a subgroup where

\

l
5 Only three classifications indicated: favorable; doubtful;
and unfavorable.

‘

23

experience had indicated the violation rate would be lower than the
average violation rate, and computed the probability of success or
failure on the basis of total points as indicated by like ratings of the
1,000 parolees studied for each institution. Thus, there was an ex-
pectancy table for each institution based on the cases studied from
that institution. The expected violation rate, based on the experience
of the 1,000 parolees studied was computed for each total score, de—
scribed in this and other reports discussing expectancy tables, as a
score-class. On the table for Joliet, for those who scored over 16
points, there were only 1.5 percent who, on the basis of past expe—
rience, would be expected to violate their parole. On the other hand,
for those who scored in the lowest score-class, from 2 to 4 points,
76 pe rcent could be expected to violate their paroles.

The method of using several factors, which had been found to
be related to parole success or failure, for the purpose of parole
prediction, and assigning equal weight to each factor, came to be known
as the Burgess method, as compared to the Glueck method, which will
be discussed below. Other studies will be discussed which are re-
finem ents (of this method, but usually the system of many factors
with equal weights is referred to as the Burgess system, or modified

Barges s system.

The first Glueck study. Another study containing material

 

in regard to parole prediction was published about two years later
and Soon gained as much prominence in the field of parole predic-
ti°n as the Burgess study. This was the first book published by the
Gluecks in regard to their study of the cases of 500 ex-inmates of
the Massachusetts Reformatory.16 The Glueck studies are the onl}f

\

Ca 16 Sheldon and Eleanor T. Glueck, Five Hundred Criminal
r

% (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930). 365 pp-

 

24

investigations employing actual follow-up to determine the true suc-

cess or failure of the subjects. The Gluecks traced and identified

90 percent of those men who had been released between 1911 and

1922. The follow-up study took three years and cost $11,000. All

of the subjects had been released from the institution from five to

fifteen years earlier. The Gluecks found that 80 percent had not

reformed as indicated by subsequent behavior during the 5- to 15-

year period following release from the reformatory.

The Gluecks described the successful as those who had no
police, court, or prison record; no dishonorable discharge or deser-

tion from the armed forces; and no commission of individual criminal

acts. There were 21.1 percent in this category. The failures from

which the violation rates were computed were the "total failures"

described by the Gluecks. They were the individuals who had been

known to have committed serious offenses, who had the status of fugi-
tive from justice or being wanted for escape; who had deserted or
were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces; who were known

to have a continual course of minor offenses for which they had some-
how escaped arrest or prosecution; who had been convicted of one or

m0 re seious offenses; and those who had convictions for more than

five charges of drunkenness. There were 62.1 percent in this cate-

gory.
A third category, the "partial failure" group, included 16.8

Percent of the sample. They were those who had been convicted of

two minor offenses or who had been arrested for not more than

th . .
ree minor offenses. Also included were those who were arrested

f . .
or rlot more than two serious offenses not followed by conV1ction; or

a
rrest for one serious offense not followed by conviction and not

more than two minor offenses not followed by conviction. The partial

 

25

failures were not included in the group for whom violation rates were
computed.

The Gluecks used the coefficient of mean square contingency
as a test of significance and concluded that the following factors were

related slightly or not at all to the continuance or noncontinuance of

criminality:
1. Nativity.
2. Economic status of parents.
3. Educational status of parents.
4. Nativity of parents.
5. Criminality of parents.
6. Mobility.
7. Religion.
8. Regularity of church attendance.
9. Attitude toward family.
10. Age of leaving home.
11 Age when first employed.
12. Prior occupation. ' . -
13. Constructive use of leisure.
14. Frequency of previous arrests.
15. Age at time of sentence.
l6. Seriousness of offense.
17. Type of offense.
l8. Accomplice s .
1 9. Intelligence .
20 Work record in the reformatory.
21. Number of assignments.
22. Violation of reformatory rules.
23. Length of time in the reformatory.

26

There were several factors which the Gluecks concluded were
appreciably associated with the continuance or noncontinuance of
criminality. These were:

1. Economic obligations. Those who were poor in meeting
their economic responsibilities had the higher rate of failure.

2. Age of first delinquency. The failure rate decreased from
73.8 percent for those who were under 11 years of age to 44.5 per-
cent for those of 17 or older.

3. Prior arrests. The failure rate of those with no arrests
was 32.5 percent as compared with 69.8 percent for those who had
been arrested.

4. Previous record. The nonoffender had a high rate of suc-
cess while the serious offender and the continual minor offender had
high failure rates.

5. Previous penal experience. There were more than twice
as many failures among those with previous penal experience as
there were among those without such experience.

6. Physical condition at entrance. Only twenty-seven had been
described as "poor" physical condition but all of them failed in their
adjustment.

7. Mental abnormality. A threefold rating of normal, psycho-
Pathic, or psychotic. The rate of failure for the psychotic was 87.8
Pel‘cent, as compared with 75 percent for the psychopathic and 60.6
Percent for the normal.

8. Frequency of institutional misconduct. Those with no or
°°CaSiona1 misconduct had a much lower violation rate than those
deseribed as frequent or very frequent offenders.

9. Seriousness of institutional offenses. Those with minor

0ftienSes had a much lower failure rate than those with serious of-

fens e s

27

The following factor was regarded by the Gluecks as consid-
erably related to continuance or 'no continuance of criminality:

1. Prior work habits. Those rated as having good work
habits were more successful than those rated as fair, while those
rated as poor failed more often than the other two groups.

The prediction of parole success or failure, the Gluecks rea-
soned, should be based on the results of a few factors with a high
degree of relationship to future adjustment. They selected seven of

the factors they had found to be related to subsequent criminality as
the best predictors of parole adjustment. The seven factors included
by the Gluecks in their prediction table are the following:

1. Industry preceding sentence.

Previous record.

Previous arrests.
Previous penal experience.
Economic responsibility.

Mental abnormality on entrance.

“0‘01.th

Frequency of misconduct in reformatory.
The reader might question whether or not "previous record" would
11013 include or cover "previous arrests" and "previous penal ex-
Periences." However, in their study and in their prediction tables
the factors are considered separately. Thus it would seem that three
0f the seven predictive factors are probably very closely related.
There were various subgroups for each factor, as in all of the
Studies, but in this study the percent .of the failures for each sub-
group was taken as the score for the factor. In other words, the
faCtOr was weighted by using the actual failure rate for the sub-
gr°up in which the individuals fell on the factor instead of using equal
Scoring for all factors. For example, the factor "previous record"

had four subgroups, as follows:

28

Nonoffe nde r ........................ 21%
Occasional minor offender .............. 35%
Frequent minor offender ............... 53%
Serious offender ..................... 67%

The figures in the column on the right are the percentages of total
failure for each of the subgroups. A prospective parolee who was
classified as a serious offender would be scored 67 for this factor,
while a nonoffender would receive a score of 21.

The individual's prognostic score was obtained by totaling the
percentages of total failure or the failure rates in the different sub-
groups in which he belonged on the seven factors. This yielded an
"indication of failure score" which was interpreted from a table pre-
pared on the basis of the scores for the 500 individuals in this study,
which indicated the expected percentages of postparole successes,
partial failures, and total failures for various groups of "failure
scores." Although the Gluecks had pointed out that this table could
be used to advantage by parole boards, it is noted that the table is
inliel'preted in terms of postparole success or failure, as pertaining
t0 the criteria on which it was determined. Those who had scores
0f 244 to 295, on the basis of this experience, would be expected to
include 75 percent successes, 20 percent partial failures, and 5 per-
cent total failures while those with scores of 396 or over should
haVe only 5.7 percent success, with 13.7 percent failure and 80.6
percent total failure.

This method of using only a few highly related factors and
W‘figlfizing them by using the percentage of failure rates for the sub-
groups has become known as the Glueck method or system of parole
prediCtion.

The Gluecks pointed out that the first six of the seven factors

Could be utilized by the court at the time of sentencing to aid in

29

determining what type of sentence would be given. The only addi-
tional factor that the Gluecks felt would add to the prediction of pa-
role success or failure, as a result of the institutional experience,
was the frequency of misconduct in the institution.

In regard to the question of intelligence and subsequent suc-
cess or failure, the Gluecks found little or no relationship. Conse-
quently, these findings seem somewhat in agreement with Burgess.

Burgess had also found a high violation rate for the offender
who had no associates. The Gluecks found little or no significance
in the relationship of number of associates and postparole success
or failure.

The Glueck findings that the nonoffender, in terms of previous
Criminal record, had the highest rate of success of various types of
Offender supports the findings of previous studies in this regard.

Although the terminology of the subgroups is a little different
in regard to the psychiatrist's report than that used in the Burgess
Study, the finding that those reported as normal had the best rate of
suCcess would seem to support the finding of Burgess that a favor-
able psychiatric report was indicative of parole success.

Hart, Witmer, and Burgess had all found that the parolees
Who had been convicted of forgery, larceny, and burglary violated
their paroles more readily than the other types of offenders. The
Cfluecks reported little or no relationship between type of offense and

Nb sequent c riminality.

A Minnesota study. While the Gluecks were making their in-
vegtigation, Vold had been studying Minnesota parolees for some time
to determine what information in the parole records was of importance
as indicators of probably conduct on parole. The cases 3131(1in were

difided into 542 parolees from Minnesota State Prison and 652

3O

reformatory boys who were under parole supervision from July 1,
1922, to June 30, 1927, and had since been discharged. Vold de—
scribed the nonviolator as discharged from parole with no record
of violation. However, included in the violator category were those
who were cited for minor violations but who had not been returned
to prison. The results of this study were reported in a book pub-
lished in 1931.17 He analyzed forty-nine factors by computing con-

tingency coefficients for the individual factors and outcome on parole.

Eighteen factors had C value above .100. They are the following:

1. Previous criminal record ............ .283
2. Marital status at time of offense ....... .241
3. County from which received .......... .237
4. Prison punishment record ........... .227
5. Social type of inmate (six-place

classification) .................... .214
6. Work habits prior to conviction ........ .208
7. Occupation at or before conviction (six-

place scale) ..................... .208
8. Nature of crime for which convicted . . . . .204

9. Size and type of community in which
offense was committed .............. .200

10. Size and type of community in which
inmate was brought up .............. .183

11. Habits and character; whether honest

or dishonest ..................... .179
12. Habits and character; whether

ambitious or lazy ............... -. . .173
13. Habits and character; use of drugs . . . .149

\

1
Ne 7 George B. Vold, Prediction Methods and Parole (Hanover,
w Hampshire: The Sociological Press, 1931), 135 pp,

31

14. Institute of Child Welfare classification

of occupation ..................... .145
15. Habits and character; use of liquor ..... .145
16. Mobility of inmate before conviction ' .142
17. Estimate of inmate's mentality (by
prison officials) ................... .139
18. Home condition (whether parents are
.103

living, dead, or separated) ...........

Vold had described his factors by giving the success rates of the

subgroups. He found, as was found in all the studies, that the indi-

vidual with no previous record was the most successful on parole.

Witmer and Burgess had both found that the married parolee was

more successful than the single parolee. Vold found an equal suc-

cess rate for the two categories, both above the average success
rate, while it was the separated, divorced, and widowed who were

below the average rate of success.
Vold also found, as had Hart, Witmer, and Burgess, that per-

sons convicted of forgery and larceny had a lower success rate on

Parole than persons convicted of other types of offense. However,

C011trary to the others, he found that those convicted of burglary had

an almost average success rate. It will be remembered that the

Glueeks found no relationship in this regard.

Vold is another of those reporting little or no significant

relationship between 1.0., as indicated by test results, and parole

success or failure. The C value for 1.0. and outcome on parole

"PO rted by Vold was .077.
Vold also reported a low C value, .088, for number of asso-

dates and parole outcome. The Gluecks had also reported little or
n
0 relationship in this regard, while Burgess had found that those

a
P rolees who were alone at the time of offending, violated parole at

a .
higher rate than did those who had associates.

32

Vold concluded that none of the factors showed a very high

relationship to parole outcome, but that several of them combined

might have predictive value. He devised a Burgess-type expectancy

table based on the data for those factors with C values above .100.
He also devised a Glueck-type expectancy table from the same data.

He reported a coefficient of correlation (r) of .92 between the two

methods.
Vold later applied his results, using the Burgess method be-

cause he found the Glueck method involved considerably more work,

to a group of 282 inmates of the Minnesota State Prison who were

paroled between 1927 and 1929. He compared the actual rate of vio-

lation to the expected rate of violation for the entire group and found
the expected results within 2 percent of the actual results, using a
correction to make comparable the violation rates on which the pre-

dictions were made. Even without this correction there was only a

4.6 percent error for the actual violations when compared with the

Predicted number of violations.

The second Illinois study. Clark Tibbitts, following a sug-
gestion of Burgess than one thousand cases might not be a sufficient
basis for purposes of practical prediction, studied the cases of three

thousand parolees from the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac.

He added three factors to the Burgess factors: the use of alcohol,

the community to which the individual was to be paroled; and last

work assignment in the institution. The 3,000 cases: covered a period

of Slightly longer than the seven years from January 1, 1921. to

 

18
P Clark Tibbitts, "Success or Failure on Parole Can Be
redicted," J_ournal of Criminal Lai and Criminology, 22:11-50,

May, 1932.

33

December 31, 1927. The cases regarded as successful were those

that had been discharged from parole. The paroles of the violators
had been revoked because of technical violations or because of con-

victions for new offenses. The violation rate reported was 24.7

percent.
Tibbitts reported coefficients of correlation where they could

be computed, but for all of the factors he followed Burgess in the

technique of preparing tables of the percentage of violation of the
subgroups as compared to the percentage of violation for the total

group. The factors studied and a brief statement of the findings

follow:

1. Offense named in the indictment. Larceny, burglary, and

fraud offenders had a high violation rate. In this study the sex of-

fender had a violation rate of only 8 percent.

.2. Number of associates in crime. Much higher violation

rate for the "lone wolf," with the rate decreasing as associates.

inc reased.

3. National or racial origin. The Negro group showed a '

greater tendency to violate than any other group. Other groups with
high rates of violation were the Austrian, the Irish, and the Russian.

LOW violation rates resulted for the Greeks, the Lithuanians, the

Iago-Slavs, the Scandinavians, the Czechs, the Jews, the Mexicans,

the Italians, and the 'British.

4. Type of offender. Not only were the first offenders more

likely to make good than the others, but almost half the first offend-
ers who violated parole did so by technical violation while nearly
four times as many of the habitual and professional offenders violated

part>1e by the commission of new crime as through technical violations

.',._.__:__, ------‘---“rr-s—n

0‘

 

34

5. Social type. The farm boy had the best rate of success

with the criminal-by-accident quite closely second. The hobo and the

ne'er-do-well had the highest violation rates.
6. Place of residence. The table showed almost no difference
in the violation rate between those sent from Chicago and from small

cities. However, the parolees from the open country and small towns

had the best parole records.

7. Mobility in relation to record on parole. The transients

have a high rate of violation. Furthermore, the rate of technical vio-

 

lations is almost twice as high for this group as the average.

8. Type of neighborhood in which lived at time of offense.

The high violation rate neighborhoods were the underworld, Hobo-

hernia, and the rooming house. The lowest violation rate was for

those who lived in a residential neighborhood.

9. Parole community. The rooming house placement resulted
in extremely high violation while the farm and residential communities
had the lowest rate of violation.

10. Statement of the prosecuting attorney. The recommenda-
tion for leniency was most indicative of successful parole outcome
While other recommendations resulted in little differences.

11. Acceptance of a lesser plea. In this sample those who
we re allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense had a much lower
Viola-tion rate than those who were not granted that opportunity.

12. Type of sentence. In general the heavier sentences,
three to twenty years and ten year to life and two or more consecu-
tive Or concurrent sentences, exhibit lower rate of failure, while the
Very Short sentences like the one to five years showed the highest
me Of all.

13. Length of time served. In this study, mo re than a third

of those individuals who had served three years or longer violated

at. Sui...

‘l‘

 

35

their paroles while the violation rate for those who served eleven

months or less was only 13.7 percent.

14. Previous criminal record. Over half of the sample had

no previous criminal record and the violation rate among the mem-
bers of this group was considerably lower than the average for the

total group. The highest violation rate was among those who had

previous reformatory experience .

15. Working when arrested. Very little difference in viola-

tion rates.
The violation rate for those who

The rate

16. Previous work record.
worked regularly was exceptionally low, only 5.6 percent.

of violation increased, as the regularity of employment decreased, up

to 738.4 percent for those who had no work history.

17. Last assignment in institution. There were more than

fifty subgroups, but in general the barbers had the lowest violation

rate , with the office clerks, drivers, library clerks, and receiving

and discharge boys next lowest. The higher than average rates were

found among those unfit for regular assignment, with the furniture

factory, the tailor shop, and the print sh0p next.

18. Punishment record in the institution. Those with no

Puni8hment record were 5 percent below the average violation rate

While those who had been punished, no matter how often, remained

at approximately 8 percent above the violation rate.

19. Age when paroled. In this study it was the younger in-

mates who succeeded on parole while the highest violation rate was,

for 1:l'lose of 25 years or over.

20. Mental rating. In this study the inferior and very inferior

had the highest rate of parole violation. The method of determining

the 1Tl’ltelligence rating was not reported, and the ratings were listed

36

as A through E. Those with the superior rating had a considerably
lower rate of parole violation.

21. Personality rating. There were seven classifications
used in this study: normal; feeble-minded; ego; inadequate; emotional;
sexual; neuropathic; and psychotic. It was interesting to note that
only 14 of the 3,000 were listed as normal. As in the Burgess study,
it was the emotionally unstable group that had the best parole rec-
ord. They were 8 percent below the average while the feeble-minded,
the ego, the sexual, the neuropathic, and the psychotic were well above
the average rate of violation.

22. Psychiatric prognosis. Those with a favorable prognosis
had a violation rate of 16.9 percent; those with a doubtful prognosis
had a violation rate of 25.6 percent; and those for whom the prognosis
was unfavorable violated at a rate of 33.4 percent.

23. Marital status. Seemed to have little bearing, in this
study, upon outcome of parole.

24. Use of alcohol. The above comment is also apropos for
this factor.

Witmer had reported that the younger parolees violated at the
highest rate, while Burgess found the youngest and oldest, at the ex-
tremes, to be more successful. Tibbitts found that it was the younger
inmates who succeeded on parole, while those of 25 years or more
had the highest violation rate.

The finding by Tibbitts of little relationship between marital
status and parole outcome is in agreement with Vold, as far as
single and married parolees are concerned. It will be remembered
that Burgess and Witmer had found married parolees to be more
successful than single parolees.

Tibbitts' finding that those with inferior and very inferior

intelligence had the highest rate of parole violation while those with

 

37

superior intelligence were the most successful is the first finding in
this direction. It will be remembered that Burgess, the Gluecks,

and Vold had all reported little or no relationship between intelligence
and parole outcome.

This is the first report where it was found that the Negro
group showed a greater tendency to violate than any other group. The
only other report mentioning race was that of Burgess. Although he
reported that the Negro group was the second-largest group, next to
native-born whites, he found that the success rate of the Negro group
was almost average.

Tibbitts' finding that those who had served longer had higher
violation rates is support for Burgess' finding in that respect. How-
ever, Vold and the Gluecks had found little or no relationship between
time served and parole outcome.

Tibbitts also devised an expectancy table for violation and non-
violation on the basis of the results of the behavior of' his 3,000 sam-
ple. However, he modified the method by scoring only those sub—
groups where the violation rate was more than 5 percent above or
5 percent below the average violation rate. Those subgroups that
were more than 5 percent below the average violation rate were
given a "favorable" score, while those that were more than 5 per-
cent higher than the average violation rate were scored "unfavorable."
The final score consisted of the total favorable and unfavorable points,
at a rate of one point for each factor. The table indicated the ex-
pected percentage of successes or violators, according to past expe-
rience, by score classes. All of the 3,000 parolees of the sample
were scored by this method and an expectancy table prepared on that
basis. All of the cases with 12 or more favorable points and no un-
favorable points would be expected to succeed on parole, while 95.1

percent of those receiving between 10 and 12 favorable points with

38

no unfavorable points should be successful. On the other hand, only
45.4 percent of those receiving 9 unfavorable points and no favorable
points would be expected to be successful, while none of those with

10 or more unfavorable points and no favorable points could be ex-

pected to succeed.

A study of federal prisoners. Sanders reports an investiga-
tion to determine the validity of parole predictions.19 He studied the
records of 5,912 federal inmates whose sentences were terminated
between July 1, 1933, and June 30, 1934. He reported that 89.7
percent had been discharged as successful; that is, no warrants had
been is sued against them. Sanders analyzed several factors by de-
termining the significance of the difference in the success rate of
subgroups and the average success rate. He reported his findings in
terms of ”favorable" factors, "unfavorable" factors, and those for
which no significant differences were found. The factors where the
success rate was significantly greater than the average, or the "fa-
vorable" factors were:

1. Age 45 or older at time of parole.

2. School through the fourth grade or less.

3. Convictions of the national prohibition act or other liquor
laws; bankruptcy, national bank, and Federal Reserve acts.

.4. Married.

The factors found to be ”unfavorable" were:

1. Conviction of the narcotic and drug act.

2. Conviction for tranSporting a stolen car over state lines.

\
l

 

1 Barker S. Sanders, "Testing Parole Prediction," Proceed-
Mhe Sixty-Fifth Annual Congress of the American Prison As-
W (New York: American Prison Association, 1935), pp. 222-

 

39

3. Postal burglary, larceny, and robbery.

4. Having served two years or longer.

5. Single or divorced.

Sanders reported that there was no significant relationship be-
tween the following and parole outcome:

1. Mental age.

2. Educational age.

3. English age.

4. Arithmetic age.

Sanders joins Burgess, Vold, and the Gluecks, with his finding
that intelligence, or mental age, as he reports it, has little or no re-
lationship to parole outcome. His findings also support Burgess and
Tibbitts in their conclusions that the longer an individual serves the
more likely he is to violate parole. Vold and the Gluecks had reported
a lack of relationship in their findings. Although Sanders' offenders
are federal offenders, and consequently the nature of the offenses for .
which they were convicted would be of a different nature than those
of state inmates, the general tendency for high violation rates for
those convicted of property offenses seems supported by Sanders'
findings.

The ”favorable" rating for married parolees, as scored by
Sanders, is also in agreement with the findings of Witmer and Bur-
8858, who found that married parolees enjoy a high rate of success.

Sanders prepared both the Burgess—type expectancy table and
the Glueck-type expectancy table from his data. He scored a second
sample, a sample of 2,833 parolees released between July 1, 1934,
and December 31, 1934. He reported that statistical tests showed
that the differences between expected violation and actual violations

for the score classes, according to the Burgess system, could be

attributed to chance.

 

40

Comparison of the mean success score, as determined by the
Glueck method, for the successful parolees and that of the violators
did result in a significant difference, but Sanders reported that the
distribution of scores indicated that the method would be of little

use for prediction.

Two more Glueck studies. In 1934 the Gluecks published two

 

more studies. The first of these was a study of 500 women released
from the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women;0 Again, they con-
ducted extensive follow-up investigations, after the women had been
released at least five years, to establish the criterion of success or
failure. Again, the Gluecks classified their subjects into three groups.
There were 15.2 percent who were nondelinquent after release on
parole and after expiration of sentence. The second group consisted
of those who were delinquent on parole and who reverted to delinquency
after expiration of sentence, if never on parole. There were 65.4 per-
cent in the group. The third group behaved well under parole super-
vision but reverted to unlawful conduct after parole. There were 19.4
percent in this group. Consequently, 84.8 percent had again become
delinquent sometime within the five years of their release from the
reformatory.
This time, rather than using the coefficient of mean square

Contingency, the Gluecks determined the degree of relationship of

their factors to subsequent adjustment by the amount of deviation
fl‘0‘!“ the average nonviolation rate. They studied 153 factors and
discovered 15 that they concluded had a high relationship to future
Conduct_ They found that the greatest proportion of those who were

\

20
Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Five Hundred Delinquent

% (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1934), 537 PP'

41

later successful in their adjustment had been nondelinquent previous
to their incarceration; made constructive use of leisure and had no
bad habits; had made successful industrial adjustment; had a high
scholarship rating previous to their incarceration; were more stead-—
ily employed; had no mental disturbances; showed competence as
homemakers; had been exposed to good neighborhood influences within
a year previous to their commitment; lived in homes that were in
good physical condition within a year previous to their commitment;
showed no retardation in school; did not attend church; were living
with relatives or foster-parents rather than their own parents pre-
vious to commitment; had good work habits; met their economic re-
sponsibilities; and had good neighborhood influences during their child-
hood.

In keeping with their reasoning that it is best to select a few
of the most highly related factors for predictive purposes, the Gluecks
selected six factors to aid parole authorities in reaching a decision
regarding parole. The Gluecks pointed out that the six factors se—
lected from the fifteen that showed a high relationship were chosen
on the basis of the availability of data in the records and because the
intercorrelations of the factors indicated that the six would be the
most representative of several closely related factors. The factors
the Gluecks selected as indicative of successful parole adjustment
were:

1. Retardation in school. Of those who were not retarded
in school, 42.5 percent did not recidivate, while only 20.3 percent
of those who were retarded one or more years did not recidivate.

Of those with no schooling, the success rate was only 13.3 percent.

2. Neighborhood influences within a year of commitment. Of
those who lived in neighborhoods where the influences were described

as good, 45.5 percent were successful, as compared with only 27.4

42

percent where the influences were described as fair and 21.3 per-
cent where they were poor.

3. Steadiness of employment. Those who were regularly em-
ployed prior to incarceration were more successful than those who
were fairly regularly or irregularly employed and those who had
never worked.

4. Economic re3ponsibility. Those who met their responsi-
bilities were much more successful than those who did not.

5. Mental abnormality. The success rate of those with no
abnormality was highest at 29.2 percent. It was 22.8 percent for
the psychopathic, psychoneurotic, and neurasth-enic; 19.2 percent for
the‘epileptic, congenital syphilitic, drug addict; 9.0 percent for the
alcoholic deteriorate; and 0 percent for the psychotic.

6. Kind of worker in reformatory. Those rated as good had
a success rate of 32.7 percent as compared to 18.0 percent for those
rated fair and 15.4 percent for those rated poor.

The Gluecks indicated that the first five of these factors could
be used as a prognostic instrument by the courts with the addition
of the sixth factor when the instrument was to be used by the parole
aAlthorities. Again, as in their previous study, the factors were
weighted by adding the percentages of the subgroup success rates
f°r each of the subgroups in which the individual fell on each factor
t° Obtain a score, only this time it was a "success score." This
score was interpreted in terms of the expected percentage of non-
demncluent behavior, delinquent behavior during parole period, anal
delinQuent behavior after parole period but not during that period.
For example, 100 percent-nondelinquency would be expected for those
individuals with total success scores of over 200 while 100 percent
delincluency during parole would be expected of those scoring under

100

Q

43

The other Glueck study to appear in print during 1934 was a

study of one thousand juvenile delinquents. These delinquents had

been referred from the Boston Juvenile Court to the Judge Baker

Foundation, a child-guidance clinic. The mean age was 13 years,

5 months, and all had been interviewed and studied in the clinic

prior to 1922. Again, a field investigation follow-up was conducted

after five years to determine the real degree of success of failure

in adjustment. The judgment of recividism was based on arrests on i

convictions for serious offenses and minor offenses, and on knowl—

Also included was deser- ‘
|

 

edge of offenses not known to the police.

tion or dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. The violation

rate was 88.2 percent.
This time the relationship of the factors to subsequent adjust-

ment was determined by the coefficients of mean square contingency.
Those factors that were found by the Gluecks to have the highest re-
lationship to subsequent adjustment and, consequently, were included

in a table for the prediction of delinquent behavior were the following:

1. Discipline by father. Discipline was described as sound,

fair, or unsound. The lowest recividism rate was for the sound

Subgroup, while the unsound had the highest rate of recidivism.

2. Lack of school retardation. The normal and advanced had

the lowest recividism rate. For those retarded one or two years,

the rate was higher, while those retarded three or more years had

the highest rate of failure.

3. Conduct in school. There were two subgroups. Those
for whom no misconduct in school had been reported had a recidivist

rate of 72.4 percent, while those reported for truancy or other mis-
Conduct had a rate of 91.3 percent.

2
1' l Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, One Thousand Juvenile De-
W (Cambridge: Harvard University,Press, 1934), 341 pp.

44

4. Age at first misbehavior. The rate of recividism went

progressively higher as the age decreased.

5. Length of time between onset of delinquency and clinical

examination. The rate of recividism was progressively better as

length of time became smaller.

The Gluecks prepared tables giving the percentages of subse-

quent delinquency found among their 1,000 delinquents for each of

the subgroups for the predictive factors. The subgroup scores were

given in terms of the recidivism rate and the sum of an individual's

subgroup scores, in this case, would be a "recidivism score." The

exPectancy table resulting from scoring the 1,000 juvenile delinquents
indicated that an individual scoring in the best score class would be
exPected to be delinquent in 50 percent of the cases while an indi-
vidual in the lowest score class would be expected to be delinquent

in 92.6 percent of the cases.
These two Glueck studies have been included in this review

because they indicate the extensiveness of the investigations conducted
by the Gluecks and because they further illustrate the Glueck method

01' prediction. Even though the sample populations for these two stud-

ies are all women or juveniles, at least one of the findings can be

coITI'leared with the other studies reviewed thus far. That is the find-

ing that retardation in school is indicative of recividism in delin-

quency. If school retardation can be assumed to indicate inferior
intelligence, then it would appear that these two studies are, some-

What at least, in support of Tibbitts' finding that the intellectually
infe rior individuals had a higher violation rate than the other clas-

sifications of intelligence.

The Attorney General's report. For several years the United

S
tates Attorney General's office gathered information regarding parole

45

outcome from seventy-five penal institutions located in forty-two
states and the District of Columbia, which included the case history
records of approximately 95,000 parolees. The cases included all
persons of the reporting institutions whose parole began and terminated
within the period of January 1, 1928, to December 31, 1935. This
study was part of a survey of release procedures, which resulted in
a five-volume report published in 1939.22

It was the purpose of this part of the study to determine from
an analysis of parole outcome figures which set of characteristics
appear to be favorably associated with parole success or failure. A
case was considered a failure on parole whenever the official records
disclosed that the parolee had violated the terms of release. He was
considered a violator whether or not his parole had been revoked.
The term "success" means reports of violations were not found in
the parolee's record. The Chi—square test of significance was used
to determine whether or not a relationship was significant. This sig-
nificance was determined for the nation as a whole, and also was de-
terulined for each institution, individually, and reported in tables as
”fa-Vorable," "unfavorable," or "neutral." Conclusions were based
on the combined figures for the country as a whole. The tables
were presented so comparisons for various parts of the country, and
other comparisons could be made, as needed.

Although the Attorney General's survey is not a predictive
Study and does not include an attempt, to develop a prediction tech-
nique, it is being included with this review of literature related to

Parole prediction so that the Attorney General's parole outcome

\—

22
Department of Justice, United States Attorney General's

My of Release Procedures, Volume IV, "Parole" (Washington:
o"'ernment Printing Office, 1939).

46

analyses can be compared with the analyses reported in the predic-
tion studies. The characteristics studied and a brief statement of
the conclusions drawn in the study follow:

1. Race. These statistics on parole violations indicate that
‘as a race Negroes have not made as good a record as whites. The
data on the other races were so limited that violation statistics based
on them would have been of little value. I

2. Marital status. The findings indicate that in the country
as a whole, single persons were worse risks for parole than mar-
ried persons.

3. Number of dependents. The findings indicate that parolees
with dependents make a better record on parole than those without
dependents.

4. Recividism. Only 18 percent of the first offenders violated
the terms of parole, while 37 percent of the recidivists violated pa-
role. Twenty‘four percent of the recidivists committed new offenses
while on parole as contrasted with only 10 percent of the first of-
fenders.

5. Age at‘ time of first arrest. Criminals who first came
into conflict with the law before they had reached the age of 18 years
are as a rule poor risks for parole. On the other hand, criminals
who were first arrested after having passed 22 years of age make
comparatively good records on parole.

6. Nature of offense committed. The results of the analysis
present some evidence in support of the view that offenders convicted
of robbery, burglary, larceny, forgery, and counterfeiting make poorer
records on parole than those convicted of criminal homicide, assault,

sex offenses, and liquor law violations.

47

7. Number of associates participating in crime committed.

The combined statistics show that the factor of number of associates

is not significantly associated with parole outcome.

8. Type and length of sentence imposed. Short-sentence pris-

oners made better records on parole than those who had been given

long sentences.
9. Employment. Twenty-three percent of the parolees who

were employed at the time of their arrest violated parole as con-
trasted to 36 percent of the parolees who were not employed.

10. Size of community into which parolee was released.

While 37 percent of the parolees residing in cities of more than

100,000 population violated their paroles, only 17 percent of those re-
leased into communities with less than 2,500 population were recorded

as violators. Of the former, 25 percent committed new offenses as

contrasted with only 10 percent of the latter.
11. Nativity. Native-born persons made poorer records on

parole than did foreign-born parolees.

12. Age at time of sentence. Offenders who started serving

their sentences before they were 25 years old had more unsatisfactory

parole records than offenders who began serving their sentences after

they had reached the age of 25. On the ‘other hand, offenders who

were over 35 at the time they were sentenced seemed to have been

better risks for parole than persons who. were under 35.

13. Conduct in prison. The findings showed that parolees

Who had behaved well in prison made better records on parole than

ParOIees who had breached prison rules.

Admission or denial of guilt at time of arrest. Not a

14.

Significant factor as far as subsequent parole outcome is concerned.

15. Parole supervisor's prognosis of parolee. Supervisor's

proghoses formed on the basis of contacts with the parolee early in

48

the period of supervision were largely borne out by the parolee's
final record on parole.

16. Occupation on parole compared with occupation prior to
crime. The findings indicate that there was no significant relation-
ship to parole outcome.

17. Home conditions of parolee. The parolee's adjustment
to community life is generally assisted if he has a wife and family
to turn to when released from prison. On the other hand, the prob-
lem of social adjustment often becomes very difficult if the parolee
must live in a rooming or a boarding house upon release.

The Attorney General's finding that as a race the Negroes
have not made as good a record as the whites is in keeping with
Tibbitts' findings in this regard, while Burgess had indicated no
relationship between race and parole outcome.

The fact that married parolees have proved to be good parole
risks, according to this study, supports'the findings of Witmer:
Burgess, and Sanders in this regard.

It will be remembered that Burgess and Tibbitts had reported
finding that the offender who was without associates had the highest
violation rate, while Vold and the Gluecks had reported that the num-
her 01’ associates showed very little relationship to parole outcome.
The Attorney General's report also states finding that the number

0f associates is not significantly associated with parole outcome.

An Alabama study. Another study with the purpose of analyz-

 

mg Various factors related to parole success or failure was a study

2
of Alabama parolees by Graham. 3 Although Graham does not attempt

\

23
b Mary Ruth Graham, These Came Back (University, Ala-
ama: University of Alabama, 1946), 134 pp.

 

- .' ~e,
4......

49

to devise a predictive technique, she does point out that her findings
would assist the parole board in its task of defining and crystallizing
criteria to be used in the selection of prisoners for release on pa-
role.

This study covers all parolees released on parole in Alabama
from September, 1939, to August, 1944. All the information was ob-
tained from the individual parole files and a total of 4,612 parolees
were included. The reported violation rate was 10.9 percent. A
parolee was described as successful if discharged from parole, dis-
Charged from supervision, or under active supervision. The violators
had been convicted of new offenses or were returned to prison for
1ihe violation of some technical phase of parole. As in other studies,
the various factors were studied in terms of subgroups. Graham ob-
tained what she calls an "index of significance" which appears to be
the critical ratio of the differences between two percentages. She
computed the ratio for ..the differences between the subgroup violation
rate and the average violation rate. She stated that an index of less
than 1.00 indicates lack of significance, from 1.00 to 2.00, possible
significance, from 2.00 to 3.00, probable significance, and over 3.00,
undoubted significance. A list of the factors analyzed and'a brief
discussion of Graham's conclusions for each follows:

1. Race. This analysis revealed that Negro parolees have
proved slightly better performers on parole than white Parolees.
Howeve r, neither difference was significant.

2. Sex. The rate of success for women was significantly
above the average while that for men was not significantly different
from the average.

3. Race by sex. Negro women had the only significant devi-
ation from the average success rate. They were significantly more

successful.

50

4. Age at time of crime. Parolees who were under 22 years
old at the time of arrest had significantly high violation rates while
those who were over 31 had significantly high rates of success.

5. Age at time of parole. Parolees of age 21 and less at
time of parole had significantly high violation rates while those over
35 were significantly successful.

6. Education at time of crime. The amount of education was
not of marked consequence in terms of adjustment on parole.

7. Mental ability (white population only). The results indicated
no particular significance relative to intelligence.

8._ Physical condition at time of parole. Again, no significant
differences were found.

9. Venereal disease status at time of parole. The findings
indicated that venereal disease is not a criterion by which to deny
or grant parole.

10. Urban or rural residence at time of crime. Rural resi-
dence showed an undoubted relationship to success and urban showed
an equally clear relationship to failure.

11. Marital status. Married parolees succeeded at a very
high rate on parole. By contrast, single and divorced parolees were
much more likely to violate parole.

12. Number of children at time of parole. Parolees with two
or more children were very good risks, the rate of success increas-
ing .with the number of children.

13. Status of parents at time of parole. The only significant
finding was the high rate of success for the category "Father unknown,
mother living."

14. Number of siblings. None of the conclusions were signifi-

cant .

51

15. Occupation of father at time of parde. The parolees
whose fathers were farmers proved to be the best risks. The pro-
fessional background portends average success on parole. All other
occupations of fathers disclosed an association to failure on parole.
The highest index of significance for failure was for those whose
fathers were recorded as skilled laborers.

16. Occupation of parolee at time of crime. Farmers and
farm workers prior to incarceration and domestic servant and house-
keepers showed a definite tendency toward success, while skilled
laborers and textile workers showed a like tendency toward failure.

17. Length of tenure on last job at time of crime. The only
significant finding was. a. marked tendency toward failure for those who
had been employed six months or less.

18. Real property ownership at time of parole. A very sig-
nificant rate of success was found for those who own real prOperty.

19. Personal property ownership at time of parole. An ex-
tremely high rate of success was found for those owning personal
prOperty.

20. Reform school record. Parolees who had attended reform
school violated parole at a rate three times that of other parolees, a
marked significance.

21. Previous misdemeanors. Parolees with no previous mis-
demeanor convictions are more likely to succeed than the average
parolee.

22. Previous felonies. Parolees convicted of one previous
felony showed a higher failure rate than did the group as a whole.
However, parolees convicted of two previous felonies showed a ten-
dency to succeed, a favorable index of 1.55. Parolees with three or

, more previous felony convictions failed at a very high rate.

52

23. Instant offense. Violators against the public (mainly
liquor law violators) and those convicted of manslaughter proved
themselves likely to succeed on parole, while offenders guilty of
crimes against property were very prone to resume their criminal
activities upon release.

24. Associates in crime. In this study the factor of asso-
ciates in crime had no significance in terms of parole outcome.

25. Single or plural instant sentences. Those with more
than one sentence had a significantly higher rate of violation.

26. Length of sentence. Those serving sentences of two years
or less and those serving very long sentences had pr0portionately
greater success than those serving from two years through fifty years.

27. Length of time served. The success rate of the parolees
who had served two years or less was significantly higher than the
average success rate, while that of those who had served over two
years was significantly below the average success rate.

28. Prison behavior. Parolees with no demotions violated
parole much less frequently than the average. On the other hand,
one or more demotions portend a higher rate of failure than the
average. _

29. Number of escapes. Parolees with escape records are
quite likely to fail on parole.

Graham's finding that the Negro parolees had a better parole
record than white parolees is in contradiction to the findings of Tib-
bitts and the Attorney General's report. However, Graham points
out that neither difference was significant, which was the conclusion
reached by Burgess in his study.

Two studies, Vold and the Gluecks, had found that age at the
time of crime was not related to parole outcome. However, the

Attorney General's report had indicated that younger offenders made

53

poor parole records. Graham's finding in this regard supports the
Attorney General's findings.

There has been disagreement regarding the relationship of age
at time of parole to subsequent parole outcome. Tibbitts had re-
ported finding that the younger parolees were more successful. Bur-
gess had reported the youngest and oldest more successful than all
others. Graham's findings are in support of Witmer, in that it was

the parolees 21 and less who had high rates of violation while the

older parolees were more successful.

Another Illinois study. In 1948 Michael Hakeem released a
report of a follow-up study of 1,108 parolees for whom parole success
or failure had been predicted.24 Hakeem's 1,108 subjects included
all of the individuals paroled from an Illinois institution (not named)
during the two-year period including 1939 and 1940. The parole files
were studied six years later, allowing at least three years of parole
for each subject. Success was determined by discharge from parole.
The rate of violation was found to be 27.7 percent. Burgess-type
predictions had been made for the group at the time of parole.
Hakeem stated that the prediction. table used was a modification of
the Burgess table. The prediction table had been revised after a
refinement study involving 9,729 cases paroled between 1925 and
1935. This refinement was not otherwise reported in the literature.
Hakeem did not give the particulars of the refinement study, but stated
that the analysis of the 9,729 cases had indicated that three of the

original Burgess factors should be excluded from the expectancy

 

4
Michael Hakeem, ”The Validity of the Burgess Method of
Parole Prediction," American Journal of Sociology, 532374-386,
March, 1948.

54

table while eight new factors should be added. The three factors
excluded were:

1. County from which committed.

2. Statement of judge or prosecutor.

3. Acceptance of a lesser plea.

The eight factors that were added were:

1. Extent of contact with relatives or friends.
Employment at time of offense.
Job in prison at time of parole hearing.
Indulgence in drink.
Venereal infection.
Size of parole community.

Type of neighborhood to which paroled.

mflO‘U‘ltBUDN

Type of job on release.

No further elaboration of the factors was reported and sub-
group variations were not indicated. Hakeem divided his subjects
into two groups, one composed of all the individuals paroled during
1939 and the other composed of all the individuals paroled during
1940. He then compared the exPected rate of violation with the ac-
tual rate of violation for the various score-classes in the expectancy
table. He reasoned that the total violation rates of the group on
WhiCh the predictions were based and the group on Which the pre—
dictions were made would have to be made comparable before the
comparisons would be meaningful. Consequently, he divided the ex-
PeCted total violation rate by the actual total violation rate and
multiplied the quotient by the uncorrected percentage of violators in
each score-class to obtain what would have been the expected rate
baSed on the actual rate of violation. Although no tests of signifi-
cance were reported, Hakeem concluded the corrected differences

inchcated "remarkable accuracy.” In comparing the predictions and

55

outcomes for the two groups, Hakeem said, "A comparison of the
accuracy of the prediction for cases paroled in 1939 with that for

cases paroled in 1940 shows no really significant differences."

Another Wisconsin study. An additional study of Wisconsin

parolees was reported in 1949. This was a study by Alfred C.

Schnur of 1,762 inmates paroled from the Wisconsin State Prison
25

between January 1, 1936, and December 31, 1941. Schnur found

that 82.5 percent had successfully completed their paroles. He stated

that a parolee was considered a success if he was not arrested and
convicted for an offense committed with two years after release, which
resulted in a sentence of at least six months on probation or commit-

ment to an institution. His study was an analysis of some of the

factors related to parole success or failure for the purpose of devis-

ing a predictive instrument. Schnur stated that the differences re-

ported were analyzed by the conventional tests of significance and

were significant at the 5 percent level or better. The factors stud—

ied and a summary of the findings follow:

1. Previous record. Ninety-five percent of those who had no

previous criminal history were successful. There was a decreasing

rate of success down to 60 percent for those with three or more

previous convictions.

2. Amount of time spent under legal supervision from time

of birth up to present sentence. There was a decline from 84 per-

cent for those who had been under previous supervision for one year

to 41 percent for those of ten years or more.

 

2
5 Alfred C. Schnur, "Predicting Parole Outcome," Focus,
28:70-75, May, 1949. '

56

3. Type of offense. Adulterers and bigamists had a success
rate of 96 percent. Murderers not also engaged in a property crime
had a 94 percent rate compared with 89 percent for those so engaged.
Ninety-three percent of the embezzlers were successful, as were 92
percent of the sex offenders. Forgers and confidence game offenders
had the lowest rate of success.

4. Age at first arrest. Of those who were over age 35 when
first arrested, 92 percent were successful compared with 70 percent
for those who were under age 14. Schnur gave no further data on
this point.

5. Misconduct citations. Eighty-six percent of the successful
parolees had never been cited for misconduct. The success rate
decreased to 65 percent for those who had been cited fifteen or more
times.

6. Age at leaving school. The older the individual was when
he left school, the more chance there was that he would commit a
new crime. This factor and the conclusion reached by Schnur did
not seem meaningful to the writer, nor did further study of Schnur's
discussion of this point. As a consequence, the writer elected to
quote Schnur‘s entire discussion of this point. The quotation follows:

When we turn to success and failure after release, the
next factor in significance is age at leaving school. The older
a man is when he leaves school the greater are his chances of
committing a new crime. This surprising statement may be

. explained this way. A school is operated at the prison. It is
observed that the less education a man has when he comes to
prison, the more likely he is to go to school in prison. Men
who make use of the prison school have better than average

chances of leading lawful lives.

7. Age at time of offense. The older the individual was when

he came to prison, the more chance there was that he would succeed

on parole.

57

8. Age at parole. The same conclusion as for age at time
of offense.

9. Marital status. The widowed, separated, and married pa-
rolees succeeded at a rate above the average, while single parolees

were less than the average.

10. Race. Negro and foreign-born succeeded at a better

than average rate.

11. Venereal infection. The venereally diseased had less
chance of being successful than the average.

12. Number of accomplices. The parolee who had accom-
plices had a better chance of being successful than those with no
accomplices.

Schnur reported some factors that did not result in signifi-
cant differences. Those were: parole period; prior education; in-

telligence; use of alcohol; and whether prior residence was rural
or urban.

Schnur further complicates the picture in regard to race by
reporting that the Negro succeeded at a better than average rate.
Graham and Burgess had reported finding no significant differences
in rate of success, while Tibbitts and the Attorney General had re-
ported the opposite finding; namely, that Negroes had a higher vio-
lation rate.

Schnur's findings in regard to a high success rate for mar-
ried parolees is in keeping with the general trend in this regard,
but the fact that separated parolees also have a high success rate
is not in keeping with previous findings.

Although the study was undertaken to provide a basis for a
predictive instrument, Schnur concluded by saying that construction
of a predictive instrument would not be attempted until a special

analysis of each of the factors for which significant differences had

58
Further perusal of the literature

been found could be completed.

failed to disclose additional reports in this regard.

The most recent study. The latest report in the field of pa-

role prediction is a book by Lloyd E. Ohlin, a research sociologist
in the Illinois Division of Correction. Ohlin's work is a further
refinement of the Burgess method of parole prediction. He analyzed
twenty-seven factors by using the cases of 1,000 parolees from the
Joliet-Stateville and Menard Divisions of the Illinois State Peniten-
tiary System. The thousand cases had been paroled at least five

years prior to the study, and success was determined by discharge

from parole.
The twenty-seven factors were divided into subgroups and the

violation rate for each subgroup determined by dividing the number

of violators by the total number in the group. Four statistical tests

were then used to determine which of the subgroups should be se-

lected as predictive items. These were tests of the reliability of

the data; a critical ratio test of significance; a Q coefficient for the
measurement of the association of attributes; and a measure of the
predictive efficiency. , Fifteen of the twenty-seven factors did not
have subgroups that adequately met the statistical tests imposed,
according to Ohlin, and were not retained for use in the prediction
table. The subgroups of the remaining twelve factors were marked
with l, 0, or X, to indicate whether the subgroup was rated as

The factors are

favorable, neutral, or unfavorable predictive item.

listed below with the subgroup ratings of each:

 

26
Lloyd E. Ohlin, Selection for Parole (New York: Russell

Sage Foundation, 1951) .

59

1. Type of offense. Favorable: homicide and assault, and
sex offenses. Neutral: robbery, larceny and stolen property, for-
gery and fraud, and miscellaneous. Unfavorable: burglary.

2. Sentence. Favorable: all definite sentences. All other
sentences are neutral.

3. Type of offender. Favorable: first offender. Neutral:
technical first, occasional, and juvenile recidivist. Unfavorable:
recidivist and habitual.

4. Home status. Favorable: superior. All others were
neutral.

5. Family interest. Favorable: very active. Neutral: ac-
tive, sustained, and passive. Unfavorable: no family interest.

6. Social type. Favorable: erring citizen, marginally delin-
quent, ”farmer," socially inadequate. Neutral: ne'er-do-well, and
sex deviant. Unfavorable: floater, socially maladjusted, drunkard,
and drug addict.

7. Prior work record. Favorable: regular. All others were
neutral.

8. Community from which committed. Favorable: none.
Neutral: urban and rural. Unfavorable: transient.

9. Parole job. Favorable: none. Neutral: adequate and no
job. Unfavorable: inadequate.

10. Number of associates. Favorable: three or more.
Neutral: none, and one or two. Unfavorable: there was no subgroup
marked unfavorable.

11. Personality. Favorable: normal (no gross defects).
Neutral: inadequate, unstable, egocentric, gross personality defects,

no record. There were no subgroups marked unfavorable.

6O

12. Psychiatric prognosis. Favorable: favorable. Neutral:
problematic, doubtful, guarded, unfavorable, and no record. There
were no subgroups marked unfavorable.

As stated previously, Ohlin excluded fifteen factors after anal-
ysis because the subclasses lacked a sufficient degree of association
with outcome, or statistical significance, or reliability, or stability.
Ohlin then added that he also dropped out factors which were found
to be highly correlated with other factors which better met the statis-
tical tests of inclusion. Unfortunately, Ohlin does not indicate which
factors did not have subgroups that adequately met the statistical
tests imposed and which were dropped because of high correlation
with other factors which were included in the prediction tables.
Ohlin states that each factor was tested several times with various
combinations of subgroups before being finally excluded. The follow-
ing list gives the factors that were excluded:

1. Time served.

Age.

Nationality and racial origin.
Criminal record.
Punishment record.

Marital status.

Working at time of offense.

Last institutional as signment .

$004001th

Criminal mobility.

,—
0

Neighborhood at offense.
11. Use of alcohol.

12. Venereal infection.

13. Parole community.

14. Parole neighborhood.

15. Mental rating.

61

Each parolee was given one favorable point for every favor-
able subgroup in which he fell, one unfavorable point for every un-
favorable subgroup, and zero for every neutral subgroup. The final
score is the number of unfavorable points subtracted from the fa-
vorable points. Ohlin states that the exPerience table is constructed
by listing the violation rates for the score groups. The violation
rate is computed by dividing the number of violators by the total
number of persons in the group. These violation rates give the per-
centage of persons who have violated parole within each score group

and serve to indicate the violation rate that can be expected for

similar groups in the future.

A different approach. A different approach to the problem of
parole prediction was presented by Ferris Laune in 1936.27 Remind-
ing the reader that penal officials had often remarked, in one way

or another, that an intelligent inmate's "hunch" about the probable
parole success or failure of other inmates was usually a pretty ac-
curate guide, Laune attempted to utilize inmate "hunches" in'the
development of a predictive instrument. Laune obtained the coopera-
tion of two long-term inmates who had college degrees and who pos-
sessed high intelligence. Each listed one hundred inmates for whom
he believed he could hazard an intelligent guess as to the probability
of success on parole and with whom he believed his collaborator was
also acquainted. Each of the inmates‘made a guess, on a lOO-point
scale, of the probability of success for the 150 mutually known sub-

jects. Then a period of from one hour to two hours daily for nearly

two months was Spent while the two inmates attempted to justify

 

27
Ferris F. Laune, PredictinLCriminality (Evanston: North-

western University Press, 1936).

62

their "hunches" about each of the subjects. A careful stenographic
record was kept of these discussions so that the factors underlying
the "hunches" could be isolated and identified.

A. total of forty-two "hunch" factors were identified in this
manner. The factors were identified by Laune but are not defined
here because they were not empirical findings. The inmates' "hunches"
of the factors that would aid in predicting parole success or failure, in
addition to including statements regarding the usual reference to pre-
vious record, steadiness of employment, and others found by the em-
pirical studies, also suggested that such factors as an excessive in-
terest in clothes, a craving for gay life, shrewdness, and conceit,
among others, would identify the prospective successful or nonsuc—
cessful parolees.

Laune then went on to develOp a 1,701-item questionnaire based
on the "hunches" mentioned above and designed to objectively mea-
sure the presence or absence of the factors in an individual. A final
questionnaire of 161 items was developed which exhibited a correla-
tion of .62 with Burgess-type scores. Laune's report is only con-
cerned with the development of the scale and does not contain a report
of actual administration of the scale to a group of parolees.

Because this was the only study reported in the literature that
was of somewhat the same nature as the present study, the writer
was particularly interested in learning more of any use that had been
made of Laune's scale. However, a search of the literature failed
to disclose reports of such application. Correspondence with the
author disclosed that he had left the correctional field shortly after
writing his book and that he had not made further application of his
scale. He further stated that he did not think his scale had been of-

ficially used in any institution or parole system.

63

Comfirison of factors. Table I has been prepared as a means
of summarizing the most important findings of the various investiga-

tions of parole outcome. There were several factors on which the

findings were in agreement. Ten of the studies investigated the re-
lationship of previous record to parole outcome. All of them reported
that the group of parolees who had no previous criminal history have

a high rate of success on parole. These same investigators reported,

also, that the group of parolees who had been sentenced previously

had a low rate of success on parole.

Another factor on which there was complete agreement was
that those parolees who had been steadily employed prior to incar-

ceration also had a high rate of parole success.

The absence of institutional misconduct also seems to be re-

lated to parole success, although two investigators, Ohlin and Witmer,

reported finding no relationship.

Most of the investigations reported that younger parolees were
more likely to violate parole than were older parolees, if age at first

arrest, age at crime, and age at parole can be grouped together in

this consideration. However, two of the investigators reported find-

ings of no relationship, and Burgess found that the younger and older
Parolees tend to be more successful than those in between.

i In general, the married parolee is regarded as a good parole

risk, according to six of the investigations. However, Vold, Tibbitts,

and Ohlin found little or no relationship between marital status and

pa-I‘OIe outcome._

Those who were convicted of property offenses such as for-
gery, fraud, breaking and entering, burglary, and larceny were gen-
erally found to have higher violation rates than offenders for other

types of crime. However, Ohlin found this true of burglary only,

while the relationship of the others to parole outcome was not

64

TABLE I

A. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF SEVERAL INVESTIGATORS

1N REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF VARIOUS

FACTORS TO PAROLE OUTCOME

 

 

 

 

Investigators
Aspect of Factor for Which
t' ' ' t d Th
Rela 10nSh1p IS Repor e Hart Witmer Burgess e
Gluecks
1. Length of sentence 1 2
(shorter) ........... O -
2. Misconduct (absence of) + 0 + +
3. Age at first arrest
(younger) ........... -
4. Age at crime (younger). . 0
4
5. Age at parole (younger) - ?
6. Marital status (married). + +
7. Previous record (none). . + + + +
8. Previous record
(repeated) ........... - - - -
9. Type of offense
(property) ........... - - - 0
10. Social type (farmer) + +
11. Intelligence (inferior) . . . O 0
12.. Psychiatric (favorable) . . + + +
13. Associates (none) ..... - 0
14. Prior work record
(regular) ........... + + +
15. Time served (longer) . . . - 0
16. Race (Negro) ........ O

0 indicates a finding of little or no relationship.

- indicates a high relationship to parole violation.

+ indicates a high relationship to parole success.

 

 

TABLE 1 (Continued)

65

 

 

Investigators

 

Atto rney G raham

 

Vold Tibbitts Sanders Schnur Ohlin
General
3 4
o - + '2 o
+ + + + + 0
o - - -
+ .. ..
o o + + + + o
+ + + + + +
-5 o
+ + + +
0 - o o o
+ +
0 - o o - o
+ + + + +
0 _ - - o
- - o +
\

 

 

7 both extremes were favorable.

6 Excluding burglary.

Burglary only.

66

significant, and Vold found burglary was the offense, of that group,
whose perpetrators would most likely not violate more than the av-
erage, while the usual findings resulted for the other offenses in that
group.

In those investigations where a farm background was reported,
all findings agreed in that the individual with a farm background had
a better than average success rate.

In those investigations that reported on the availability of psy-
chiatric reports, there was agreement in that those individuals for
whom a favorable report was made had a high rate of parole success.

Almost all of the investigators reporting findings in regard to
the relationship of intelligence to parole outcome reported little or
no relationship. However, Tibbitts found that the intellectually infe-
rior parolees had a low rate of parole success.

Eight investigators reported findirgs in regard to the number
of associates. Five of them found that there was no relationship be—
tween number of associates and parole outcome. Schnur, Tibbitts,
and Burgess found a high rate of violation for the offender who was
alone. None of the investigators found that having associates was
related to parole failure.

On the remaining factors, for which findings were reported
by several investigators, there is a lack of agreement in regard to
relationship to parole outcome. One of these concerns the findings
in regard to the Negro parolee. The Attorney General and Tibbitts
had found that Negroes violated at a rate greater than the average.
However, Schnur found that they had a better than average rate of
success. On the other hand, Ohlin, Graham, and Burgess found there
was no significant difference between the success rate of Negroes

and the average success rate.

67

The relationship of length of time served to parole outcome
has also been reported by several investigators. Three of the inves-
tigators found that there was no relationship, while four others found
that the longer an individual served the more likely he was to violate
parole.

Seven reporters investigated the relationship of length of sen-
tence to parole outcome. Three of them found there was no rela-
tionship, while two, Burgess and Tibbitts, reported higher violation
rates for those with shorter sentences. The Attorney General found,
on the other hand, that those with shorter sentences were more suc-
cessful on parole. Graham reported that those with short sentences
and those with very long sentences were more successful than the
average parolee.

As far as the writer knows, there is and has been only one
state that includes with the material available to the parole board a
predictidn of parole success or failure based on expectancy resulting
from past experience, and that is Illinois. One of the reasons for
this maybe that while a considerable amount of work has been done
to develop prediction techniques, there has been a noticeable lack of
validation of the techniques, in terms of actual outcome on parole.
While investigators have been eager to devise methods and study fac-
tors, little has been done to see if predictions coincide with actual
behavior. Three studies of this nature have already been discussed,
those of Vold, Sanders, and Hakeem. Their findings would indicate
that the expected results agreed quite closely with the actual results.
These findings suggest that the prediction methods investigated were
reasonably accurate. However, these are the only studies that have
been reported of investigations made to determine how well predic-

tions coincide with actual outcome, a situation which led Monachesi

to state:

68

The paucity of data for the empirical verification of pre-
dictions based upon the relational patterns of personal and social
factors of offenders and conduct has tended to impede the appli-
cation of prediction techniques to the practical and everyday
work of judicial and correctional authorities.

2
In the most recent book by the Gluecks, 9 they reveal that
they are in the process of testing all of their prediction tables. They
are also engaged in research in which well over two hundred factors

in the background and make-up of offenders are being considered.
Summary

The literature pertinent to parole prediction and parole out-
come reveals that numerous factors have been analyzed by various
investigators to determine their relationship to parole outcome, and
some authors have devised prediction ‘methods based on such analysis.
This review was intended to inform the reader of the factors which
have been analyzed and that have served as a basis for predictive
techniques thus far devised.

A great many factors have been analyzed to determine the re-
lationship to parole outcome for several different populations. Study
of the individual factors reveals several for which there was com-
plete or almost complete agreement. A brief summary of the find-

ings in regard to the factors most frequently investigated follows:

 

 

 

2
8 Elio D. Monachesi, "American Studies with Prediction of
Recividism," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 41:268-289,

September , 1950 .

2
9 Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Criminal Careers in Retro-

spect (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1943), p. 218.

69

1. All investigations found a high rate of success for the
parolee with no previous record. Conversely, they also found that
the repeating offender was more likely to violate parole than those
with less criminal history.

2. All investigators found a high rate of success for those
who had been steadily employed prior to conviction.

3. Institutional misconduct was included in ten investigations.
Eight of the findings were alike in that absence of institutional mis-
conduct was highly related to parole success. However, two investi-
gators reported no relationship between institutional misconduct and
parole outcome.

4. The married man was found to be a good parole risk by
six investigators, although three others reported finding no relation-
ship between marital status and parole outcome.

5. Conviction for property offenses was consistently found to
be related to a high rate of parole violation except for minor varia-
tions.

6. Six investigators included farm background as a subgroup
of a factor. All found a high rate of success for the parolee with a
farm background, as compared with those with other types of envi-
ronment.

7. Five investigators reported consistent findings that indi-
viduals who received favorable psychiatric prognoses had a high rate
of success.

8. One investigator found inferior intelligence related to pa-
role failure, while six others found little or no relationship between
intelligence and parole outcome. This apparent lack of agreement of
findings was also found for number of associates, length of time
served, race, age at time of parole, age at time of crime, type of

sentence, and other factors.

70

Although there have been only a few studies aimed at validat-
irg parole prediction with actual parole outcome based on validation
with a second, nonrelated group, the findings of those studies were
that the predictions were remarkably accurate.

One investigator has suggested a different approach to parole
prediction. He devised a questionnaire based on an analysis of in-
mate "hunches" regarding the probability of the parole success or
failure of other inmates. This method has yet to be tried empirically.

It can readily be seen that most of the factors which have
been used to predict parole success or failure are preincarceration
factors. The present study has been undertaken to fill a need for
an additional factor, a factor that takes into account the mental

readiness of the proSpective parolee at the time he is considered

for parole.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE POPULATION

This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the procedures and

techniques involved in the study, as well as a discussion of the per-

tinent information concerning the sample population. The discussion

will point out how the materials and the sample were selected, how

the data were obtained, and related information obtained in the course

of the study.

Procedure

In order to determine if there are measurable differences be-

tween the thinking of successful and nonsuccessful parolees by the

we of standardized inventories, it was first necessary to administer

such inventories to a group of prospective parolees. Because the

lifferences sought are differences in thinking while the individuals
.re still incarcerated and before they are paroled, it was not pos-
ible to administer inventories to a group of successful parolees
nd at the same time administer the same inventories to those who

ad failed. It was necessary to test a group of inmates going on

irole and then later identify the successful and nonsuccessful.
A review of the standardized tests in the field of personal

ljustment indicated that there were several which might lend them-

:lves to a study of this nature. A group of studies compiled in a

72

1
book by Hathaway and Monachesi pointed out that the Minnesota Mul-

tiphasic Personality Inventory had successfully differentiated between

delinquents and nondelinquents. From this it seemed logical that this
scale would have promise in the present investigation with parolees.

The first report in their book, a report by Capwell, indicated that the

Washburn Social Adjustment Inventory and the Vineland Social Ma-

turity Scale did not seem to hold a great deal of promise in this re-

These scales did not show any real difference between the

2
gard.
delinquents and nondelinquents, according to Capwell's conclusions.

3
Perusal of the Mental Measurement Yearbook indicated that many

of the other available adjustment inventories should not be included,
inasmuch as the reports of their validity and reliability were not

Of those remaining, the following were selected because

satisfactory.
a study of the traits or factors included in them indicated that the

composite range of factors or traits measured by these five inven-
tories seemed inclusive enough to best measure those factors that

appeared to contribute to the possible differences in the thinking of

the prospective parolees, in a battery that seemed to be most eco-
nomical, both monetarily and in point of time. They were: the

Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN; Guilford's Inventory of
Factors STDCR; the Johnson Temperament Analysis; the California

 

Starke R. Hathaway and Elio D. Monachesi, Analyzing and
Uni-

_?_redicting Juvenile Delinquency with the MMPI (Minneapolis:
'ersity of Minnesota Press, 1953), et passim.

Dora. F. Capwell, "Personality Patterns of Adolescent Girls:
elinquents and Nondelinquents," ibid., pp. 29-36.

Oscar Krisen Buros, editor, The Third Mental Measurement
Rutgers University Press, 1949), pp. 23-

:arbook (New Brunswick:

4.

73

Mental Health Analysis; and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. The various factors and their descriptions, as reported

in the manuals, follow:

4

The Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN.

C General pressure for overt activity. A tendency for
liking and engaging in overt action.

A Ascendancy in social situations as opposed to submis-
siveness; leadership qualities.

M Masculinity of attitudes and interests as opposed to
femininity.

I Lack of inferiority feelings; self-confidence.

N Lack of nervous tenseness and irritability.

5
An Inventory of Factors STDCR.
S Social introversion-extraversion. Shyness, seclusiveness,

tendency to withdraw from social contacts, versus socia-
bility, tendency to seek social contacts and to enjoy the
company of others.

T Thinking introversion-extraversion. An inclination to
meditative or reflective thinking, philosophizing, analysis
of one's self and others, versus an extravertive orienta-
tion of thinking.

D Depression. Habitually gloomy, pessimistic mood, with
feelings of guilt and unworthiness, versus cheerfulness
and optimism. ‘

C Cycloid disposition. Strong emotional fluctuations, ten-
dencies toward flightiness and emotional instability, ver-
sus uniformity and stability of moods, evenness of dis-
position.

4
J. P. Guilford and H. G. Martin, The Guilford-Martin Inven—

Igry of Factors GAMIN, Manual (Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply Com-
?anY. 1943), p. l.

 

 

5 J. P. Guilford, An Inventory of Factors STDCR, Manual

:Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply Company, 1940), p. l.

74

Rhathymia. A happy-go-lucky, carefree disPosition,
liveliness, impulsiveness, versus an inhibited, over-
controlled, conscientious, serious-minded diSposition.

The Johnson Temperament Analysis.6

A

Nervous. Restlessness, fidgeting, tenseness, sleepless-

ness, tendency to worry, and faulty muscular control
are typical symptoms.

Depressive. The best known of all the traits and prop-

erly included in most temperament tests and classifica-
tions.

Active. The trait that is shown in the dynamic, lively,
hustling, life-of-the-party, "peppy" persons.

Cordial. Expre s sive warm-heartedne ss .

Sympathetic. A trait that undoubtedly arose as a bio-
logical necessity to insure the adequate care of children.

Subjective. The trait of being highly self-centered. It
may go so far that the individual interprets many things

as related to himself, although there may be no real
relationship.

Aggressive. The trait which causes pe0ple to be push-

ful, ruthless, ambitious, conceited, persistent, and de—
termined.

Critical. This trait is named very naturally.

Self-mastery. The tendency to make plans and carry
them through relatively undeflected by impulse and
Caprice. It is nearly the opposite of impulsive and
capricious. It involves a capacity to inhibit but also

involves an ability to decide when and how much to
inhibit and act accordingly.

 

Roswell H. Johnson, Johnson Temperament Analysis, Manual

(Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1944), pp. 2-3.

75

The California Mental Health Analysis.7

A Close Personal Relationships. The individual who pos-
sesses this asset to mental health counts among his ac-
quaintances some in whom he can confide, who show gen-
uine resPect for him as a person, and who welcome close
friendship of a warm and substantial nature. Such an
individual enjoys a sense of security and well-being be-
cause of having status with those who mean something
to his welfare.

B Inter-Personal Skills. The socially skillful individual
gets along well with other people. He understands their
motives and is solicitous of their welfare.

C Social Participation. The socially adjusted individual
participates in a number of group activities in which
cooperation and mutuality are in evidence.

D Satisfying Work and Recreation. The well-adjusted indi-
vidual experiences success and satisfaction in his work.
He also participates in a variety of hobbies and recrea-
tional activities which provide release from tension. He
will have chosen tasks that challenge him and that satisfy
his need for approval and a sense of achievement.

E Outlook and Goals. The mentally healthy individual has
a satisfying philosophy of life that guides his behavior
in harmony with socially acceptable, ethical, and moral
principles. He also understands his environment and
the forces and cause and effect relationships which shape
his destiny as a member of a social group. He estab-
lishes approved personal goals and makes reasonable
progress toward their attainment.

L Behavioral Immaturity. The behaviorally immature indi-
vidual reacts on the basis of childhood (infantile) ideas
and desires. He has failed to develop emotional con—
trol and thinks primarily in terms of himself and his
own comfort.

 

7 Louis P. Thorpe, Willis W. Clark, and Ernest W. Tiegs,
Mental Health Analysis, Manual (Los Angeles: California Test Bu-
reau, 1946), p. 3.

76

M Emotional Instability. The individual who is emotionally
unstable is characteristically sensitive, tense, and given
to excessive self-concern. He may substitute the joys
of a phantasy world for actual successes in real life.
He is quick to make excuses for failure and to take ad-
vantage of those who will serve him.

N Feelings of Inadequacy. The inadequate individual feels
inferior and incompetent. This feeling may be related
not only to particular skills or abilities but may be
general in nature.

O Physical Defects. The individual who possesses one or
more physical defects is likely to respond with feelings
of inferiority because of unfavorable comparisons or of
handicaps in competition with other persons. It is usually
not the physical defect per se that brings unhappiness
but the restrictions and social disapprovals which come
in its wake. Thus the extremely short, the homely, or
the crippled individual may feel that his handicap is in-
surmountable .

P Nervous Manifestations. The individual who is suffering
from nervous symptoms manifests one or more of a
variety of what appear to be physical disorders such as
eye strain, loss of appetite, inability. to sleep, chronic
weariness, or dizzy Spells. '

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

L Lie Score. A measure of the degree to which the sub-
ject may be attempting to falsify his scores by always
choosing the response that places him in the most ac-
ceptable light socially.

F Validity Score. Not a personality scale but a check on
the validity of the record. Usually indicates that the
subject was careless or unable to comprehend the items.
Occasionally indicates a highly individual and independent
person or persons who are rather badly neurotic or
psychotic.

 

8 Starke R. Hathaway and J. Charnley McKinley, The Minne-
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Manual (New York: The Psy-
chological Corporation, 1943), pp. 4-6; and Supplementagy Manual for
the Minnesota Multighasic Personality Inventory (New York: The
Psychological Corporation, 1946), p. 1.

77

K Correction Score. Also not a personality scale. Essen-

tially a correction factor which has been found to be of
value in sharpening the discriminatory power of the
clinical variables now measured by the inventory.9

The amount of abnormal con-

Hs The Hypochondriasis Scale.
It is characteristic of the

cern about bodily functions.
hypochondriac that he is immature in his approach to

adult problems, tending to fail to respond with adequate

insight.
D The Depression Scale. Measures the depth of the clin-

ically recognized symptom or symptom complex, depres-

sion. A high score suggests a characteristic personality
background in that the person who reacts to stress with
depression is characterized by lack of self-confidence,
tendency to worry, narrowness of interests, and intro-

version.
Hy The Hysteria Scale. Measures the degree to which sub-
ject is like patients who have developed conversion-type

hysteria symptoms.
The Psychopathic Deviate Scale. Measures the simi-
larity of the subject to a group of persons whose main

difficulty lies in their absence of deep emotional re-

sponse, their inability to profit from experience, and
Although sometimes

Pd

their disregard of social mores.
dangerous to themselves or others, these persons are

commonly likable and intelligent. Except by the use of
an objective instrument of this sort, their trend toward

the abnormal is frequently not detected until they are in

serious trouble. They may often go on behaving like
perfectly normal people for several years between one
outbreak and another. Their most frequent digressions
from the social mores are lying, stealing, alcohol or

drug addiction, and sexual immorality. They may have
short periods of true psychopathic excitement or depres-
sion following the discovery of a series of their asocial

or antisocial deeds. They differ from some criminal
types in their inability to profit from experience and in
that they seem to commit asocial acts with little thought

of possible gain to themselves or of avoiding discovery.

9 Hathaway and Monachesi interpret K as a measure of de-
ness and a lack of candor. Op. cit., p. 18.

78

Mf The Interest Scale. Measures the tendency toward mas-
culinity or femininity of interest pattern. Two scoring
keys were provided, for males and for females. The
papers of this study were scored by both scales although.
the meaning of the female scale, for male subjects, is
not known.

Pa The Paranoia Scale. Persons characterized by suspicious-
ness, oversensitivity, and delusions of persecution, with
or without expansive egotism.

Pt The Psychasthenia Scale. Persons who are troubled by
phobias or compulsive behavior. The compulsive behav-
ior may be either explicit, as expressed by excessive
hand washing, vacillation, or other ineffectual activity,
or implicit, as in the inability to escape useless think-
ing or obsessive ideas. The phobias include all types
of unreasonable fear of things or situations as well as
overreaction to more reasonable stimuli.

Sc The Schizophrenia Scale. Those persons who are char-
acterized by bizarre and unusual thoughts or behavior.
There is a splitting of the subjective life of the schizo-
phrenic person from reality so that the observer cannot
follow rationally the shifts in mood or behavior.

Ma The Hypomania Scale. The personality factor character-
istic of persons with marked overproductivity in thought
and action. The word ”hypomania” refers to a lesser
state of mania. Although the real manic patient is the
lay person's prototype for the ”insane," the hypomanic
person seems just slightly ‘off normal. The hypomanic
patient has usually gotten into trouble because of under-
taking too many things. He is active and enthusiastic.
Contrary to common expectations he may also be some-
what depressed at times. His activities may interfere
with other people through his attempts to reform_ social
practice, his enthusiastic stirring up of projects in which
he then may lose interest, or his disregard of social
conventions. In the latter connection he may get into
trouble with the law. A fair percentage of patients diag-
nosed psychopathic personality are better called hypo-
manic.

There were other inventories that might have been included

in the place of some of the above. However, the selection of this

79

battery was made because it included more factors or traits in an
equal amount of administering time. Of the inventories selected,
only the Johnson Temperament Analysis had inadequate reviews in
the Mental Measurement Yearbook, mainly because at the time the
review was written there had not been any reports based on its use.
The writer felt that some of the traits included--specifically, the
subjective, the aggressive, the critical, and the self—mastery traits--
would be of particular value in identifying differences in the thinking
of successful and nonsuccessful parolees. The material presented
by Johnson in the manual concerning research that had been carried
out with the scale and of research underway, convinced the writer
that the use of the scale would add to the value of the present study.
Many of the studies which have been completed on parole vio-
lation figures indicate that the majority of the violations were within
the first year of parole. Witme‘rlo found that 88 percent of the vio-
lations in her study occurred within the first six months. The latest
figures available for this state were for the first nine months of 1950.
Table II shows the months served on parole prior to violation. This
table shows that 75.8 percent of those who were going to violate their
paroles did so before the end of one year. These figures indicated
that a waiting period of one year would be adequate to identify the
majority of the unsuccessful parolees. Thus, by administering the
five inventories to a group of parolees and then by waiting a year
to determine which of the group were successful, the writer would
have obtained the responses of a group of successful parolees which
could be compared to the responses of a group of nonsuccessful

parolees.

 

10
Witmer, op. cit., p. 384.

TABLE II

80

PAROLE SERVICE PRIOR TO VIOLATION FOR 529 VIOLATORS

DURING THE FIRST NINE MONTHS OF 1950

 

 

 

Time Served No. Pct.
1 day to 1 month ......................... 70 13.2
Over 1 month to 3 months ................... 76 14.4
Over 3 months to 6 months .................. 125 23.6
Over 6 months to 9 months .................. 82 15.5
Over 9 months to 1 year .................... 48 9.1
Over 1 year to 1-1/2 years .................. 63 11.9
Over 1-1/2 years to 2 years ................. 39 7.4
Over 2 years to 2-1/2 years ................. 16 3.0
Over 2-1/2 years to 3 years ................. 7 1.3
Over 3 years to 3-1/2 years ................. l 0.2
Over 3-1/2 years to 4 years ................. l 0.2
Over 4 years to 4-1/2 years ................. l 0.2

 

 

81

The use of such inventories permitted scores which could be
translated into means and standard deviations for the successful and
nonsuccessful groups of parolees. The determination of whether or
not any obtained differences were real differences would involve some
means of testing the significance of the differences. A test of signifi-
cance which readily lent itself to this type of data was the "critical
ratio." The difference between two statistics, such as two means, is
called reliable or significant when the probability is high that the dif-
ference cannot be explained away as temporary or accidental. The
”critical ratio" is a means of testing this significance. It employs
a ratio of the obtained difference between two statistics and the stand-
ard error of that difference. Confidence in the significance of the
difference increases as the probability of error decreases.11

The answer to the question of when a difference is to be taken
as statistically significant depends on the probability of the given dif-
ference arising ”by chance." Usually a difference will be marked
as "significant" when the gap between the two statistics points to
or signifies a true difference in the parameters in the population
from which the samples were drawn. It would seem to be fairly
obvious, then, that before a judgment of significance or nonsignifi-
cance can be made, some point or points must be found along a prob-
ability scale which will serve to separate these two judgment cate-
gories. At the same time, it must be recognized that judgments of
significance are never all-or-none, but range over a wide scale of
probabilities. Experimenters have for convenience chosen several

arbitrary standards--called levels of significance or confidence-«of

 

11
Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and Education

(New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953), pp. 212-215.

82

12
which the .95 and the .99 levels are the most often used. The

confidence with which one accepts a difference as significant or non-
significant will depend on the level of significance reached. In the
normal curve of distribution, £1.96 standard deviations mark off the
points to the left and to the right of which lie 5 percent of the cases
(2% at each end). When a critical ratio (CR) is 1.96 or more, then
it includes at least 95 percent of the cases. Therefore, a level of
significance of .95 is considered significant on the grounds that in

no more than once in twenty trials would the difference arise "by
chance." The .99 level of significance is more exacting than is the
.95 level. Again, in the normal curve of distribution, $2.58 standard
deviations mark off points to the left and right of which lie 1 percent
of the cases. Thus a CR of 2.58 would include 99 percent of the
cases. If the CR is 2.58 or more, therefore, it is extremely signifi-
cant on the grounds that not more than once in a hundred trials would
such a difference be due to chance. It should be emphasized, again,
that those standards which have been established as indicating signifi-

cance are arbitrary standards usually chosen along a probability scale.

 

12
In common use the levels of significance are usually re-

ferred to as the 5 percent and the 1 percent levels of confidence,
respectively. There will be a great deal of discussion in this study
referring to the various levels of significance. The writer has hoped
to avoid confusion in this regard by consistently using the positive
end of the scale of probability when referring to a significance level.
Thus, through this study the closer a level of significance approaches
1.00, the greater will be the confidence in the significance of the dif-
ference. For example, later in the report are tables which report
the various levels of significance obtained from several comparisons
of scores on the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN. These
levels of significance range from .008 to .989. The .008 level of sig-
nificance is almost zero and for this study indicates that very little
confidence could be placed in the significance of the difference. On
the other hand, the .989 level of significance is very close to 1.00
and indicates that a great deal of confidence could be placed in the
significance of that difference.

83

Population figures for Michigan's institutions as of October,
, are reported in Table III. The number of releases through
le in the year 1951 for these institutions are reported in Table
The latter indicated that a majority of the subjects for the study
tld come from the State Prison of Southern Michigan located at
(son, Michigan, inasmuch as the majority of the state's paroles
re from that institution. The House of Correction and Branch
Lson located at Marquette, Michigan, was eliminated from the study
cause of the travel distance involved, and the Detroit House of
irrection located at Plymouth, Michigan, was eliminated because it
as not a state-owned institution, although the state houses some of
:s inmates there. The Michigan Reformatory is at Ionia, Michigan,
Lnd the Cassidy Lake Technical School is at Chelsea, Michigan.

In Michigan, the parole board interviews prOSpective parolees
to determine if parole should be granted. If parole is granted, in-
vestigations of home, community, and job placement are ordered.
These investigations, together with the clerical work involved in the
issuance of the parole certificate, take approximately one month.

This one-month waiting period lent itself to the study at hand. The
inventories to be used in this study could be administered to a group
of inmates, who had been granted parole and who were waiting to
leave the institutions. Then, after the waiting period, the successful
and nonsuccessful parolees could be identified and their reaponses
to the inventories could be compared to determine if there were
differences in their thinking at the time they were granted parole.

In this manner the five inventories that had been selected for
the study-«i.e., the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN,
Guilford's Inventory of Factors STDCR, the California Mental Health
Analysis, the Johnson Temperament Analysis, and the Minnesota

Multiphasic Inventory--were administered to those inmates of the

84

TABLE III

POPULATION FIGURES FOR MICHIGAN'S PENAL INSTITUTIONS
ON OCTOBER 3, 1952

 

 

Institution

 

 

Population

State Prison of Southern Michigan .............. 5,990
Michigan Reformatory ....................... 1,275
Michigan Branch Prison at Marquette ............ 1,054
Cassidy Lake Technical School ................. 165
Detroit House of Correction:

Men ................................. 131

Women ............................... 319
Total ................................... 8,934

 

 

State Prison of Southern Michigan, the Michigan Reformatory, and
the Cassidy Lake Technical School who had been granted paroles
and who were waiting to be released. The inmates being tested had
already obtained their paroles and were further assured that the
results of the tests to be taken would have nothing to do with their
cases thereafter. The fact that they had already obtained their pa-
roles tended to reduce any anxiety and apprehension regarding the
testing itself.

The initial administration of the inventories took place at the
State Prison of Southern Michigan. The inventories were administered
in the evenings at the state prison at Jackson, Michigan, but at the

other two institutions they were administered during the day. It was

85

TABLE IV

RELEASE THROUGH PAROLE FROM MICHIGAN'S
PENAL INSTITUTIONS DURING 1951

 

 

 

 

Institution Paroles
State Prison of Southern Michigan ............... 1,482
Michigan Reformatory ........................ 575
Michigan Branch Prison at Marquette ............. 127
Cassidy Lake Technical School .................. 166
Detroit House of Correction .................... 156
Total .................................... 2,506

 

 

oon discovered that the time required to complete the inventories
as from five to eight hours, for those who were able to complete
em. The testing period at the state prison was broken up into
hour sessions. Many of the inmates were able to finish the
entories in two sittings, but a third sitting was required for the
ver readers. The order of administering the inventories was as
ws: The Mental Health Analysis, the GAMIN, the STDCR, the
son Temperament Analysis, and the MMPI. The Mental Health
'sis was printed with larger print than the others, was in easily
stood terminology, and printed on what the publishers called
~eze' ' paper; consequently, the writer decided it would aid in
g the inmates in the proper frame of mind for the remainder

testing. The MMPI was so long (566 items) that it was given

 

86

last. There was no reason for the order of administering the re-
maining three tests other than the writer's decision to keep the

order consistent. Each man was told that he could begin a new
inventory as soon as he had finished the one on which he was work-
ing. Cigarettes were placed on the tables and the men were told
they could smoke as they worked.

As a means of indoctrination for each new group, the writer
discussed the objectives of the study in the light of the inmates' own
experiences. He pointed out to them the various ways that the results
might serve to benefit the inmate population. He suggested that if a
valid scale of parolability could be discovered, it would aid in the

discovery of those cases that might be paroled before their minimum
sentence'had expired, and that it would aid in the determination of
how long a parole iviolator would have to be detained after his return
to prison. The writer also pointed out that such a scale might aid
the parole board in determining whether or not an individual should
be continued beyond his minimum term. This indoctrination seemed
desirable to obtain the full cooperation of the inmates. If they had
simply been told they were to devote approximately eight hours of
their time to a very laborious task of answering 1,309 questions
vithout understanding the reason for doing so, the inmates would
ndoubtedly have reacted with little interest or care. The writer
)Uld have been fearful that the answer sheets would have been
irked the easiest way possible, without much thought, or possibly
bout the inmate's even bothering to read the questions. In decid-
this point the writer could anticipate a great deal of lost time and
rt unless he obtained the interest and cooperation of the parolees.
as surprising to note the interest engendered in the inmates for
study, and almost all of them c00perated wholeheartedly. Some

refused to take part, and a further few indicated passive

87
resistance by spoiling their answer sheets in some manner. These

papers were not scorable and were not included in the study proper.

At the end of five months of testing, 471 men had been tested and the

writer's records indicated 400 complete sets of answers to the five

inventorie 3.
During the year interim the writer corrected the answer sheets

by the use of the standardized answer scales available. He also went

through the parole files to obtain the following information for each

individual included in the sample:

1. Institution from which paroled.

2. Race.
Date of parole.
Time served prior to parole.

Offense for which sentenced.

Age at time of parole.

3
4
5
6. Parole officer or place of parole.
7
8. Intelligence quotient.

9.

Previous criminal history.
The review of the literature had indicated that the usual means

of determining failure on parole was the practical criterion of the

issuance of a parole violation warrant. This does not necessarily

mean that those parolees for whom a warrant has not been issued are

therefore making a success of their parole adjustment, since warrants

are requested and issued usually only as a last resort. Thus, many

arolees are able to stumble through their parole period, or perhaps

re led through by the parole officer, without any real capacity for

adequate community adjustment. However, in a study of this na—

re it would not be possible to determine the actual degree of ad-
stment for each and every parolee from a study of his reactions

the community, the home, his employment, and his use of leisure

88

time. Therefore, the issuance of a parole violation warrant has been
found to be the most practical means of differentiating between the
successful and nonsuccessful parolee. This measure of success or
failure is a clear, objective measure which can be obtained from the
parole files.

At the end of one year, a review of the parole files revealed
that parole violation warrants had been issued for 36.5 percent of the
sample population. The writer had recorded the names and numbers
of the parolees under the supervision of the various parole officers.
Lists were sent to each parole officer with a request that he rate
his parolees as to whether their adjustment was excellent, above av-
erage, below average, or borderline. A space was also provided for
the parole officer to check if the parolee had violated, this informa-
tion serving as a means for double-checking the writer's figures.

The review of the parole files had revealed that thirty parolees
. had been discharged from their paroles and that forty-seven others
had been paroled out‘ of the state. The violators were in three groups:
technical violators; violators with new sentences; and absconders.

Kelley,13 Forlano and Pintner,l4 and others have shown that
it is advisable to use extreme grOups for statistical studies of this
nature. Inasmuch as the three categories of parole violators would
be included in the lower extreme grouping, the writer decided that the

excellent and high average groups should be included in a comparable

 

13
T. L. Kelley, "The Selection of Upper and Lower Groups

for the Validation of Test Items," Journal of Educational Psycholpgy,
30:17-24, January, 1939.

14
G. Forlano and R. Pintne'r, "Selection of Upper and Lower
Groups for Item Validation," Journal of Educational Psy_chol%_y, 32:

544-49, October, 1941.

89

high-extreme group. This left the low-average and the borderline

groups at the center of the sample population. Because the thirty

dischargees had completed their paroles with satisfactory adjustment

they were included in the high-extreme group. The writer studied

the parole reports of the forty-seven out-of-state parolees and con-
cluded that ten of them should also be included in the "best" group.
This conclusion was based on the completeness of the parole officers‘

reports and the writer's knowledge of the parole systems of the

various states. It was felt that if there was any question regarding

the parolee's satisfactory adjustment, then that parolee should be
placed in the "doubtful" category. The adjustment of those other

than the ten mentioned above was questionable and the "doubtful"

category seemed best suited for them. This system of classification

resulted in the establishment of three categories: the violators at

one extreme; the "doubtful" group in the middle; and the "best"

group at the other extreme. This classification has been maintained

for 'the first half of the study. Table V indicates the number and

type of parolees that made up each category of the classifications.
For a variety of reasons it was not possible for all of the

individuals to complete each of the tests. Table VI indicates the

number of answer sheets available for each inventory and for each

of the classifications. There were at least 147 answer sheets avail-

able for the two extreme groups with a total of at least 417 answer

sheets for the entire group in each test.

Sample Population

Dividing the parolees into three categories provided a means

of comparison of the three types to obtain a more complete picture

of the sample population used in this study. The material presented

TABLE V

90

CLASSIFICATION OF PAROLEES INTO THREE CATEGORIES

ACCORDING TO PAROLE ADJUSTMENT
OR TYPE OF VIOLATION

 

 

Parole Category

 

 

Total

NO Pct. of Péi‘t:
Major Adjustment Total
Classification or Violation gory
Violators 172 36.52
Technical 78 16.5 45.4
New Sentence 62 13.2 36.0
Absconders 32 6.8 18.6
"Best" 163 34.61
- Excellent 32 6.8 19.6
High Average 91 19.3 55.8
Discharged 30 6.4 18.4
Out- of- state
Acceptable 10 2.1 6.2
"Doubtful" 136 28.87
Low Average 69 14.6 50.8
Borderline 30 6.4 22.0
Out-of-state
Questionable 37 7.9 27.2
471

 

 

 

TABLE VI

91

TOTAL NUMBER OF INVENTORIES COMPLETED FOR EACH
OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF PAROLEES

 

 

 

 

Number
Inventory Vio- Doubt-

lators Best ful Total
Mental Health Analysis ....... 167 162 131 460
Multiphasic Inventory ........ 147 147 123 417
Guilford-Martin GAMIN ....... 163 159 126 448
Guilford STDCR ............ 165 155 123 443
Johnson Temperament Analysis. . 163 153 126 442

 

 

in the remainder of this chapter is presented from the point of view

of interest only. As stated previously, this study is not meant as a

validation of the experience table factors for Michigan parolees nor

to discover new factors of that type. However, the information pre-

sented hereafter was available for this population and the writer felt

it should be’included because of the interest it will have for many

readers.

Table VII contains a comparison of the sample papulation ac-

cording to the offense for which each was serving at the time of

parole. The federal system of uniform crime reporting divides of-

fenses into two major categories: offenses against prOperty and

offenses against persons. By using the critical ratio of the difference

between percents as a test of significance, it is noted that the success

TABLE VII

92

A COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION ACCORDING TO

OFFENSE FOR WHICH SERVING AT TIME OF PAROLE

 

 

 

, Non-
Offense Total V10- vio- Best Doubt—
lators ful
lators
Breaking and entering,
night ............. 96 32 64 29 35
Breaking and entering,
day .............. 11 6 5 2 3
Larceny from dwelling 7 4 3 1 2
Larceny from/in store 17 10 7 2 5
Larceny from/in building . 11 4 7 5 2
Entering ............ 4 3 1 0 1
Larceny from/in factory I 0 1 0 l
Entering without breaking. 1 0 1 0 1
Unlawfully driving away

auto ............. 29 10 19 13 6
Breaking and entering,

‘auto ............. 10 5 5 2 3
Larceny from auto . . . . . 13 5 8 6 2
Entering auto ......... 3 2 I 0 1
Larceny by trick ...... 6 4 2 l 1
Larceny by conversion . 4 1 3 1 2
Larceny from person 9 3 6 5 1
Grand larceny ........ 16 ' 7 9 4 5
Embezzling .......... 4 1 3 2 1
Receiving stolen property . 2 l 1 0 1
False pretenses ....... 2 0 2 l 1
Possession of burglary

tools ............. l l 0 0 0
Uttering and publishing 24 10 I4 9 5
Forgery ............. 9 6 3 1 2
Violation of check law . . . 10 2 8 6 2
Malicious destruction of

property .......... Z l 1 1 0
Violation of drug law 19 5 14 6 8
Carrying concealed

8 2 6 3 3

weapons ...........

 

93

TABLE V11 (C ontinue d)

 

 

Vio NW” D bt
Offense Total vio- Best ou -
lators ful
lators

 

Escape .............
Disorderly, 3rd .......
Drunk driving, 2nd ..... l 0 1 0 1
Leaving scene of

accident ........... 1 1 1 1 0
Felonious driving ...... l 1 0 0 0
Violation gaming law . . . . 2 0 2 2 0

U1
NU)
nAN
CO
rbN

 

U1

Robbery, armed ....... 28 13 15 10
Robbery, not armed . . . . 27
Conspiracy to rob,

armed ............
Manslaughte r .........
Assault less than murder .
Assault to murder .....
Felonious assault ...... l
Negligible homicide .....
Statutory rape ........ — l
Indecent liberties ...... 1
Gross indecency .......
Assault to rape .......
Incest ..............
Sodomy .............
Attempted sodomy ......
Bigamy .............
Nonsupport ...........
Abandonment .........

U1
N
N
\O
y—n
LA)

HwHHNNNAmO‘NANv—IU‘IN
Or—Oo—oNOh—prt—mOt-IOO
t—NHOONo‘NAwr—v—NOmN
ONHOONwOQNI-‘NINOAN
HOOOO‘OwNLflr—OAOOt—O

 

 

94

rate of those individuals who committed crimes against property is
not significantly different from the success rate for all offenders.
The reader will remember that the violation rate for the total group
was 36.5 percent, which would mean that the success rate is 63.5
percent. The success rate for those convicted for crimes against
property is 60.4 percent, and difference of 2.9 percent. The CR of
this difference is .83, with a level of significance of .59. However,
a comparison of the success rate of those individuals who were con-
victed of offenses against persons, which is 72.8 percent, as compared
to the total success rate reveals a significant difference. The differ-
ence in this case is 9.3 percent with a CR of 2.06 and a level of
significance of .96. This indicates that a significantly greater num-
ber of individuals who commit offenses against persons, when com-
pared to‘the average rate of success, are likely to be successful in
their adjustment to the community after incarceration.

The comparison of the success rate of those individuals con-
victed of crimes against property, which is 60.6 percent, with the
72.8 percent success rate of individuals convicted of crimes against
persons, resulted in a difference of 12.2 percent, with a CR of 2.56
and a level of significance of .989, which is a marked significance.
These figures indicate that a significantly greater number of individ-
uals who commit offenses against persons are likely to be successful
in their parole adjustments than will be individuals convicted of of—
fenses against property. These comparisons are presented in table
form in Table VIII.

The writer also computed the CR for those individuals who had
been sentenced for sex offenses as compared with the success rate
for the total group. The success rate of those convicted of sex of-
fenses was 74.0 percent, a difference from the average success rate

of 10.5 percent. This CR was 1.56 with a level of significance of .88.

TABLE VIII

95

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SUCCESS
RATES OF VARIOUS GROUPS OF OFFENDERS

 

 

 

Parole Level
Classification of Differ- Crit- of
Success Com- . .
Groups of Rate arisons ences 1cal Sig-
Offenders p (pct.) Ratios nifi-
(pct.)
cance
1. Total success 1
rate ........ 63.5 1 vs. 2 2.9 0.83 0.590
2. Crimes against
property ..... 60.0 1 vs. 3 9.3 2.06 0.960
3. Crimes against
persons ...... 72.8 2 vs. 3 12.2 2.56 0.989
4. Sex crimes . . . 74.0 1 vs. 4 10.5 1.56 0.880

 

 

l
The numerals refer to those in the first column.

The difference here is approaching significance and would imply a

tendency for more of the sex offenders to make a success on parole
greater than the average offender. Reported in terms of percents,
74 percent of those individuals who were sentenced for sex offenses
were making a success of their paroles at the end of one calendar

year. The reader will remember that the average success rate, for
the total group, was 63.5 percent. Of the two sex crimes that included
the most individuals in this study (statutory rape and indecent liber-
ties), 79.4 percent were making satisfactory adjustements. A total

of 72.8 percent of those individuals who were convicted of crimes

96

against persons were making a success of their paroles as opposed
to 60.6 percent of those who were convicted of crimes against prop-
erty. The critical reader will note that the success rate for the
offenders against persons and for [sex offenders is approximately
the same but that the CR is much different. The reason for this is
found in the number of cases included in the two categories. There
were 188 cases included in the offenders against persons group while
there were only 50 in the sex offender group. The smaller the num-
ber of cases involved, other things being equal, the greater will be
the standard error; and the resulting critical ratios, although the ob-
tained differences might be the same, will be much different, as in
this case. If the trend indicated by this study, that of 74 percent
success rate for this group, were to be found in a study involving
several hundred sex cases, the results could probably be accepted
with confidence. There should be a study of this nature for Mich—
igan parolees, to determine whether or not there is a significant
difference in this direction.

Table IX shows the sample population by institutions. As
state previously, the violation rate for the total group was 36.5 per-
cent. Taken by, institutions we find that the violation rates for the

three institutions included in this study were as follows:

State Prison of Southern Michigan ........ 38.0%
Michigan Reformatory ................. 32.8%
Cassidy Lake Technical School ........... 28.2%

It is noted that the violation rates are in proportion to the total pop-
ulations of the institutions. This may suggest that the amount of
individual attention that the inmate receives at the reSpective insti-

tutions is reflected in the parole violation rate of these institutions.

97

TABLE IX

SAMPLE POPULATION BY INSTITUTIONS

 

 

 

 

Institution
Parole . -
, , , State Prison , , Casmdy Lake Totals
Classfiication Michigan ,
of Southern Reformator Techmcal a:
Michigan Y School
3
Total sample . 377 55 39 471 i
i
Violators . . . 143 18 11 172 2
i
Nonviolators . 234 37 28 299 -‘
Best ...... 135 16 12 163
Doubtful . . . . 99 21 16 136

 

 

The sample population by race is reported in Table X. Sixty-
ne and two-tenths percent of the parolees were white, while Negroes
ade up 37.4 percent of the total sample. However, only 33.3 per-
nt of the white parolees violated parole, while 40.9 percent of the
groes were parole violators. The difference between these per-
ntages is 7.6 percent. The CR of this difference is 1.60 with a
el of significance of .89. This is not a significant difference,
rough it is approaching significance.

The sample population by age at the time of parole is reported
Table XI. The range was from 16 years to 71 years. The follow-
CR's were obtained from the differences between the mean age

me of parole for the various categories:

98

TABLE X

SAMPLE POPULATION BY RACE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race
Parole . . -
., , White Negro Indian Mex1can Totals
ClaSSlflcatlon
No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. :—
1
Total sample. 288 61.2 176 37.4 3 0.6 4 0.8 471 fi
Violators ... 96 55.8 72 41.9 2 1.15 2 1.15 172 3'
‘1
Nonviolators. 192 64.3 104 34.8 1 0.3 2 0.6 299 31’
Best ...... 107 65.7 54 33.05 0 0 2 1.25 163
Doubtful . . . . 85 62.5 50 36.8 1 0.7 O 0 136
Best versus Doubtful ................... 3.63
Best versus Violators .................. 3.23
Nonviolators versus Violators ............ 1.95
Violators versus Doubtful ............... .56

each case the direction of the CR was in favor of the first-men-
.ned group. These CR's indicate that the difference in age between
:- best and the violators, between the best and the doubtful, and be-
zen the nonviolators and the violators is significant. This is another
y of indicating what many other reporters have found--that the
er parolee tends to be more successful in his adjustment.

The record folder of each parolee contains an intelligence
tient that was obtained during the quarantine period of the individ-

s incarceration. Unfortunately, the same test had not been used

TABLE XI

99

SAMPLE POPULATION BY AGE AT TIME OF PAROLE

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

Age
in Non-
Years Total violators Violators Best Doubtful
15-19 27 19 8 9 10
20-24 122 74 48 32 42
25-29 114 63 51 33 30
30-34 77 54 23 30 24
35-39 55 32 23 17 15
40-44 29 21 8 14 7
45-49 ‘ 23 17 ' 6 l3 4
50-54 14 10 4 7 3
5-59 6 6 0 5 1
)-64 2 2 0 2 0
-69 l l 0 l 0
74 l 0 1 0 0
ns 30.475 31.10 29.385 32.98 28.84
9.60 10.10 8.55 11.45 8.40

 

 

100

in all cases. The majority of the 10's were obtained from an inter-
pretation of the Army Alpha scores. However, the Wechsler-Bellevue
had been given to those individuals who could not read and as a vali—
dation of those who had extremely low Army Alpha scores. Table
XII reports the IQ as noted in the record folders of the sample pop-
ulation. The range of 10's was from a low 42 to a high 134. The
difference in the means of the "best" as opposed to the "doubtful"
was the greatest difference. The CR of this difference was 1.22

with a level of significance of .78. This is not a significant differ-

ence. The interpretation of the above information is that for this

win-I“ 0L.“ 2: ~ tutu-r. --4m-:I.E

sample the IQ, as measured and reported here, does not differentiate
between the successful and the nonsuccessful parolee.

Table XIII reports the time served by the various groups of
the sample population. It should be pointed out that the time served,
Tor this study, includes the total number of months served consecu-
ively prior to the time of release. This does not necessarily mean
he time served on the sentence from which paroled. Foi- example,
n individual who has been returned to prison as a parole violator
rith a new sentence has served an indefinite period on his. old or
revious sentence before starting the present one. In the same
tanner, an escapee continued serving on the sentence for which he
as serving at the time of escape until it was terminated or annulled
:fore he started serving the escape sentence.

As a result, it is possible that an inmate might have served
veral years on a previous sentence before he started serving on
2 sentence from which he was paroled at the time of this study.

e time served as indicated by Table XIII reports the total number
months that the individual had served since he last entered prison
ore the present parole. Because one individual was released at

end of 20 years, it was necessary to compute both the means and

SAMPLE POPULATION BY INTELLIGENCE

TABLE XII

101

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

IQ Non-
Totals violators Violators Best Doubtful
40-44 1 1 0 0 1
45-49 0 0 0 0 0
50~54 1 1 0 0 1
55-59 2 0 2 0 0
60-64 3 l 2 l 0
65-69 14 8 6 6 2
70-74 34 24 10 11 13
75-79 60 38 22 18 20
80-84 60 38 22 20 18
85—89 47 31 16 20 11
90-94 51 32 19 18 14
95-99 59 42 17 21 21
100-104 40 23 17 10 13
105—109 33 19 14 10 9
110-114 22 16 6 1'2 4
I 15— 119 21 10 11 7 3
120- 124 ll 7 4 5 2
125- 129 7 5 2 2 3
I 30— 134 5 3 2 2 1
Means 91.82 91.65 92.115 92.61 90.495
S -D . 15.60 15.10 16.50 14.60 15.05

 

 

 

 

102

TABLE XIII

 

SAMPLE POPULATION ACCORDING TO TIME SERVED

I:
I:

 

 

 

Time Parole Classification
Served
in Non-
T .
vlonths otal violators Violators Best Doubtful E-
1-6 22 13 9 8 5 1
7-12 119 74 45 38 36 1
13-18 107 71 36 39 32 1
19-24 68 39 29 16 23 1;
25-30 39 22 17 8 14 hi
31-36 33 23 10 12 11 '
37-42 16 11 5 9 2
43-48 24 16 8 10 6
49-54 7 4 3 4 0
55-60 7 5 2 4 1
61-66 7 3 4 0 3
67-72 7 5 2 4 1
73-78 5 5 0 4 1
79-84 4 3 1 2 1
85-90 1 1 0 1
91-96 0 0 0 0
97-102 0 0 0 0
103-108 1 1 0 1
109-114 2 1 1 1
115-120 0 0
121-126 1 1 1
235-240 1 1 1
Mean 24.2 26.8 22.44 28.3 21.5
5.1). 20.70 22.74 16.62 27.06 14.76

Median 17.99 17.78 17.83 17.96 17.56

 

 

I.

n D

It!

, ... .o

103

the medians for the various groupings of the population. A compar-

ison of the medians, which do not give such great weight to the ex-
treme case, indicates that the differences were very slight. Critical

ratios were not computed for the mean difference because the writer
felt that the extreme case would tend to invalidate the CR's.
Table XIV compares the previous records of the sample pop-

ulation. The term "previous record" denotes the police record of

It include 3 pre vious

'""”"—‘“'T

the individual prior to the present conviction.

arrests, juvenile institutionalizations, probations, convictions, and any

 

other recorded information that constitutes [the individual's known

antisocial history. There are several interesting bits of information

to be gained from this table. First of all, it is noted that 80.2 per-

cent of those who had no previous criminal history of any kind were

making a success of their paroles. The difference between this suc-

cess rate and the average success rate, which 'was 63.5 percent,

avas 16.7 percent. The CR of this difference was 3.64 with a level

1f significance of .9996, an extremely significant difference.

The success rate for what are normally regarded as first

ffenders, which includes those with no previous records, was 68.3

In penology, the term "first offender" includes all those
They may have

ercent.
arsons who are serving their first prison sentence.
:en in various juvenile institutions, in jail many times, or even on
'obation as a result of a felony conviction, but they are still re-

"first offenders" because they are serving a sentence in

rded as
This would automatically include those

prison for the first time.
Without the

0 have had no previous criminal record of any kind.
o previous record" group, the success rate for the so-called

rst offenders," for the sample in this study, drops to 61.6 per-

1;,

TABLE XIV

104

SAMPLE POPULATION ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS RECORD

 

 

Previous Record

Parole Clas sification

 

Non-

 

 

Total V10- vio- Best Doubt-
lators ful
lators
None (no previous history
of any kind) ........ 101 20 81 50 31
Juvenile institutions 16 7 9 3 6
Probation ............ 61 18 43 27 16
Juvenile institutions and
probation .......... 4 3 1 l 0
Many arrests ......... 19 5 14 5 9
Jail ................ 36 18 18 6 12
Probation and jail ...... 22 9 13 7 6
Juvenile institutions,
probation, and jail 6 3 3 2 1
One parole violation 19 9 10 4 6
Two parole violations 8 3 5 0 5
Three parole violations . . 1 0 l 1 0
Juvenile, probation, and
parole violation ..... 4 3 1 l 0
One previous sentence . . . 49 20 29 17 12
One previous and
juvenile institution 9 0 9 5 4
One previous and jail 25 14 ll 4 7
One previous and parole
violation .......... 9 4 5 4 1
One previous and P.V.
with new sentence . . . . 20 8 12 6 6
Two previous sentences . . 30 15 15 10 5
Two previous and many
arrests ........... 1 0 0 0 1
Two previous and
juvenile institutions . . 3 0 3 l 2
Two previous and
parole violation ..... 2 1 2 0 1
Two previous and P.V.
with new sentence . . . . 7 4 3 2 l

 

 

105

TABLE XIV (Continued)

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

Previous Record . Non-

Vlo- , Doubt-

Total Vlo- Best
lators ful
lators

3e previous ........ 10 2 8 4 4 [-
ee previous and !
larole violation ..... l 1 0 0 0
:ee previous and P.V. ‘
with new sentence . . . . 1 l 0 0 0
ur previous ........ 2 2 0 1}
ve previous ......... 1 1 0 0 0 '5

 

 

The reader will remember that the average success rate for
all parolees was 63.5 percent. Comparing the average success rate
to the success rate for "first offenders," excluding those with no
previous history, results in a difference of 1.9 percent, with a CR
of .39 and a level of significance of .303. There is a good possibility
that a difference of this size wOuld result from chance factors and

very little confidence can be placed in its significance.

The reader will note that a heavy line has been drawn above
the classification of three previous sentences. It will be noted that
sixteen individuals who were a part of this study had served three
previous sentences or more at the time of their present incarceration.
It is interesting to note that 62.5 percent of these individuals were
making a success of their paroles. As a matter of fact, the CR of

the difference between the success rate of the so-called "first of-
ienders," which was 68.3 percent when compared with the success

rate of those individuals with three previous sentences or more, a

106

rence of 5.8 percent, is .49 with a level of significance of .376.
difference in the success rates of the "first offenders," exclud-
he group with no previous arrests, and the offenders with three
lore previous sentences is .9 percent. The CR of this differ-

is .07, with a level of significance of .056. Both differences

(1 very likely be due to chance alone. However, these figures can

:lly be regarded as meaningful because of the small number of

es in the group with three or more previous sentences.
It should be pointed out that because there were only sixteen

ses in one of the groups for the figures just cited, there would

good reason to question the reliability of the figures. However,

.e implication of these figures, that the success rate for individuals
'ith no previous record of any kind is comparatively high, that more
han half of the individuals with three previous sentences or more
are successful parolees, and that the success rate of the "first of-
fenders," ex‘c1uding those with no previous record, is not significantly

different from repeated offenders, should be eXplored more com-

pletely in regard to the Michigan parole population.
Summary

The California Mental Health Analysis, the Guilford-Martin
Inventory of Factors GAMIN, the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR,
the Johnson Temperament Analysis, and the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory were administered to a total of 471 inmates

who were about to begin their paroles. Because 75 percent of the

individuals who are going to violate their paroles have violated at
the end of the first year, the determination of parole success or
failure, using the issuance of a violation warrant as the criterion,

was established at the end of that period. Those who were still

- 31' “re 1....- mu“

107

making a success of their paroles were rated by their parole officers

and the total sample population was divided into three classifications:
the violators; the "best"; and a "doubtful" group. Tables were pre-
pared which permitted a comparison of these three groups to parole
outcome. They were presented as points of interest for a Michigan
population and not as a means of validating previous studies or of
discovering new historical factors that could be used in prediction.

A comparison of the three parole groups, on the basis of the

offenses for which sentenced, indicated thatithose individuals who

were sentenced for offenses against persons were significantly more

successful on parole than the average rate of success for all offenses.

Comparison of the violation rates of the various institutions included
in the study indicated that the violations were in proportion to the
total population of the institution, implying that the amount of indi-
vidual attention may have a definite relationship to parole adjustment.
The comparison. by race indicated no significant relationship. The
:omparison for age pointed out that the older inmates tended to be
he more successful parolees. The IQ did not prove to be signifi-
ant. The comparison of successful and nonsuccessful parolees by
'evious records brought out the fact that a Michigan population is
lch like others which have been reported, in that the best index
parolability, in this regard, was "no previous record." On the
er hand, the success rate of the SOs-called "first offender," ex-
:ling those with no previous records, was not significantly differ-
from the average success rate or the success rate of those of-

ers with three or more previous commitments.

 

T‘— ..-

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDIZED INVENTORY FACTORS

The five adjustment inventories used in this study provided a
total of forty-nine characteristics for which there were scoring scales
supplied by the authors. This chapter will deal with an analysis of
those characteristics through the comparison of the three groups of
the sample population: the violators; the "best" of the successful
parolees; and the "doubtful" group of the successful parolees.

The next five tables (Tables XV through XIX) have been in-

cluded to permit a comparison of the sample population averages

with those of the normative populations. The manuals of the inven-

tories did not contain sufficient information in regard to the norma-
tive populations so that tests of the significance of the differences
)etween the normative pOpulation and the sample population could be

Ltilized. As a matter of fact, the mean scores for the normative

Opulations were interpolated from the tables of norms provided in

1e manuals although the significance of the differences cannot be

etermined, the tables have been included because there will be

any readers interested in this information.

The meaning of the difference between the normative average

ore and the sample average score was noted for each factor. If

2 sample population score was the more desirable score, the dif-

'ence was noted as "better." However, if the normative score

icated was more desirable, the difference was noted "worse."

5 was done to indicate whether the difference was favorable or

 

:-—»- z— —.r-—— -. .
. a; . m Isll

 

 

‘Q-fi

109

TABLE XV

COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION SCORES WITH NORMS
ON THE GUILFORD-MARTIN INVENTORY OF FACTORS GAMIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Meaning
S 1
Norm1 amp 6 Differ- of
GAMIN Factors 3 ,
Mean ence Differ—
Mean SUD 4
ence
C. General pressure
for overt activity. . 13.0 10.03 4.52 -2.97 worse
A. Ascendency versus
submissiveness . . . 20.5 20.02 5.70 -0.48 worse
M. Masculinity versus
femininity ....... 19.0 19.24 5.41 +0.24 better
1. Lack of inferiority
feelings ........ 34.0 31.41 9.28 -2.59 worse
N. Lack of nervous
tenseness ....... 25.5 25.38 9.38 -0.12 worse
1

160 university students.

448 parolees.

exceed the no rm .

3
+ indicates that the mean of the sample
is below the norm.

- indicates that the mean of the sample

sample population score is more desirable.

4
Better =
normative population score is more desirable.

Worse =

- .2:.---_- -—-“-—--'—-?——’q

TABLE XVI

110

COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION SCORES WITH; NORMS
ON THE GUILFORD INVENTORY OF FACTORS STDCR

 

 

 

 

2 Meaning
Sample ,
Norm Differ- of
STDCR Factors 3 .

Mean ence Differ-
Mean S.D. 4

ence

5. Social introver-
sion—extraversion. . 16.5 17.8 8.3 +1.3 worse
T. Thinking introver—

sion—extraversion. . 35.5 29.6 10.0 -5.9 better
D. Depression ...... 20.5 17.8 10.7 -2.7 better
C. Cycloid disposition. 28.0 21.5 12.6 -6.5 better
R. Rhathymia ...... 41.5 36.5 11.2 -5.0 worse

 

 

1

388 university students.

443 parolees.

+ indicates that the mean of the sample exceeds the norm.

- indicates that the mean of the sample is below the norm.

Bette r
Worse

sample population score is more desirable.
normative population score is more desirable.

- F~'-—’O-‘ par-all
I

“ti-'11:." Amy-

111

TABLE XVII

COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION SCORES WITH NORMS
ON THE CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

2 Meaning
1 S 1
Norm amp e Differ— of
Mental Health Factors 3 ,
Mean ence Differ-
Mean SUD 4
ence
A. Close personal
relationships ..... 14 15.97 3.29 +1.97 better
B. Interpersonal
skills ......... . 13 16.42 2.88 +3.42 better
C. Social participation. 15 12.54 3.95 -2.46 worse
D. Satisfying work
and recreation 17 14.29 3.24 -2.71 worse
E. Outlook and goals 15 16.86 3.76 +1.86 better
1. Mental health
assets ......... 73.5 76.05 12.30 +2.55 better
L. Behavioral
immaturity ...... 17 12.19 3.17 -4.81. worse
I. Emotional
instability ....... 16 11.69 3.89 -4.31 worse
Feelings of
inadequacy ...... 15 13.41 3.79 -l.59 worse
Physical defects 14 18.36 2.54 +4.36 better
Nervous
manifestations . . . . 16 15.68 3.40 -0.32 worse
Mental health
iabilities . . . . 76.5 71.38 13.27 -5.12 worse

 

 

l

1200 adults in eight communities.

460 parolees.

+ indicates that the mean of the sample exceeds the norm.
— indicates that the mean of the sample is below the norm.

Better = sample population score is more desirable.
Worse = normative population score is more desirable.

r- :n :4.” Liver

112

TABLE XVIII

COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION SCORES WITH NORMS
ON THE JOHNSON TEMPERAMENT ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

2 Meaning

Temperament Factors Norml sample Differ3- ,Of
Mean Mean S.D. ence Differ;—

ence
A. Nervous .. . . . . . . 5.0 5.11 3.23 +0.11 worse
B. Depressive ...... 4.0 6.66 2.70 +2.66 worse
C. Active ......... 9.0 9.13 2.60 +0.13 better
D. Cordial . . . ..... 12.5 11.92 3.33 -0.58 worse
E. Sympathetic ..... 12.3 12.49 3.07 +0.19 better
F. Subjective ....... 6.5 8.42 3.09 +1.92 worse
G. Aggressive . . . .‘i. . 7.8 7.97 ,2.45 +0.17 worse
H. Critical ........ 4.2 6.59 3.58 +2.39 worse
I. Self-mastery ..... 14.4 12.68 4.11 -1.72 worse

Unweighted norms from 100 men from business college,
ght school of high school level, and a few university students.

442 parolees .

+ indicates that the mean of the sample exceeds the norm.
- indicates that the mean of the sample is below the norm.

Better = sample population score is more desirable.
Worse == normative population score is more desirable.

' ‘0 ‘9...‘.I;.Hh .
‘3‘

113
TABLE XIX
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE POPULATION SCORES WITH

NORMS ON THE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC
PERSONALITY INVENTORY

 

T.

 

2 Meaning
1 Sample ,
Multiphasic Scales Norm D1ffer3— ,Of
Mean ence Differ-
Mean S.D. 4
ence
.. Lie .......... 4.0 5.37 2.70 +1.37 worse
1‘. Validity ....... 3.0 7.36 7.27 +4.36 worse
S. Correction ..... 13.0 15.54 5.13 +2.54 worse
L-IS(C) .Hypochondriasis
(with K) ....... 11.3 14.96 5.17 +3.66 worse
Hs. Hypochondriasis 4.5 6.83 4.78 +2.33 worse
D. Depression ..... 16.6 19.47 4.50 +2.87 worse
I-Iy. Hysteria ...... 16.5 19.70 5.35 +3.20 worse
Pd(c) .PsvchOpath (with K) 19.0 27.50 3.50 +8.50 worse
Pd. Psychopath ..... 14.0 21.50 3.70 +7.50 worse
Mfm. Interest (male) . . 20.5 23.84 4.61 +3.34 worse
Mff. Interest (female) . 37.5 25.33 4.40 -12.17 (5)
Pa. Paranoia ...... 8.0 10.53 3.97 +2.53 worse
Pt(c).Psychasthenia . ‘
(with K) ....... 23.0 26.45 5.59 +3.45 -worse
Pt. Psychasthenia . . . 10.0 11.11 7.42 +1.11 worse
ch) . Schizophrenia .
(with K) ....... 22.0 29.86 9.13 +7.86 worse
Sc. Schizophrenia . . . 9.5 14.45 10.73 +4.95 worse
Ma(c).Hypomania
(with K) ....... 17.0 21.86 4.60 +4.86 worse
Ma. Hypomania ..... 14.0 19.00 4.95 +5.00 worse

 

 

l
700 visitors to the University Hospital.

417 parolees.

+ indicates that the mean of the sample exceeds the norm.
- indicates that the mean of the sample is below the norm.

4
Bette r

sample population score is more desirable.

Worse = normative population score is more desirable.

Score could not be interpreted for a male papulation.

.-—'-.==‘ "17— . - .

114

unfavorable for the sample population with the realization that the

differences could not be regarded as having significant meaning.
There were forty-nine factors for which sample population
scores were obtained. On one factor a decision regarding desira-

bility of score could not be made.

The writer scored the sample
population answer sheets with the Female scoring key for the Inter-

est scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory because

he wanted to make as many comparisons between successful and non-
However, there is no interpretation of that

 

successful as he could.
1F"

score for a male population.
The normative population score was the more desirable score

for the majority of the factors, in fact, for thirty- six of the forty-

nine factors.
It is recognized that the statistical significance of those dif-

ferences is not known and that many of them may have little or no
meaning, but the fact that the sample population had less desirable

scores on 75 percent of the factors should be pointed out.
It is of similar interest to inspect the individual tests in this

On the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN, the

'egard.
ample populatiOn had less desirable scores on four of the five fac-

nrs.
On the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR and on the Cal-

1rnia Mental Health Analysis there are an approximately equal

nber of factors for which the sample population had the most

rirable scores and for which the normative population had the

st desirable scores.

However, on the Johnson Temperament Analysis and on the
aesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory there is, again, a marked
rence. On the former the sample population had less desirable
as for seven of the nine factors. On the latter the sample

115

population was below the average on all of the factors. Again it is

 

noted that these differences may not be, and many of them do not
seem to be, statistically significant, but the direction of the differ-
ences seemed worthy of note.

Table XX reports the means and the standard deviations for
the three parole categories as obtained on the Guilford-Martin Inven-
tory of Factors GAMIN. The differences between these means and

the critical ratios based on those differences with the resulting levels

L's-Ir ...-fl

of significance are reported in Table XXI. The critical ratio, as ‘7

reported throughout this chapter, was computed with the following

.Jlm:

formula: 3'”

D
Critical Ratio = —,

 

“D
h 2
where (TD = FMI + 01312
In these formulas D represents the difference between the means;
OM is the standard error of mean 1; and 0'. is the standard error
1 2

of mean 2.

There were no significant differences for the Guilford-Martin
Factor of General Pressure for Overt Activity or for the Guilford-
Martin Factor of Ascendancy in Social Situations. However, both the
"best" and the "doubtful" groups were significantly more masculine
in their attitudes than the violators, according to the way this factor
is scored by the Guilford-Martin inventory. The reader will remem-
ber that the description of this factor merely stated "masculinity of
attitudes and interests as opposed to femininity." The writer cannot
explain why this characteristic should differentiate between success-
ful and nonsuccessful parolees. There seems to be decided meaning

for all successful parolees because both the "best" and the "doubtful"

 

 

116
TABLE XX
OMPARISON OF THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

THE THREE PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE GUILFORD-
MARTIN INVENTORY OF FACTORS GAMIN

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

actors Best Doubtful Violators
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. [
O 9.99 4.42 9.90 4.25 10.18 4.78
A 19.62 6.01 19.76 5.21 19.83 5.87
M 19.85 5.44 19.86 5.36 18.65 5.37
l 32.43 9.04 31.62 9.47 30.41 9.58
N 27.63 8.66 26.71 8.93 25.17 8.51

 

 

 

groups are significantly more masculine in their attitudes and inter-
ests than are the violators.

In the factor described by Guilford-Martin as indicating a lack
of inferiority feelings or, conversely, self-confidence, it is noted that
the "best" group was significantly more free from inferiority feel-
ings than the violators. The "doubtful" group was between the other
two, but not significantly different in either case. The authors, in
this regard, speak of self—confidence as one pole of this character-
istic, with feelings of inferiority at the opposite extreme. There is
a distinction in the way the ”best" of the successful parolees think
of themselves and the way the violators think of themselves, in this

regard. The "best" of the successful parolees seems to feel more

TABLE XXI

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE THREE
PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE GAMIN WITH THE
RESULTANT CRITICAL RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L ‘ Best versus Violators
9, Factors 2 ‘—
2 Dif- Score Level
I fer- Fa- CR 0f
1‘! 1 S
ence vors 18
' G ..................... -o.19 v 0.33 0.296
A. ..................... -0.21 V 0.31 0.243
M ..................... +1.20 B 1.99 0-953
1 . .— ................... +2.01 B 2.11 0965
. N ..................... +2.46 B 2.57 0-989
/
1
+ indicates difference is algebraically greater for the
first-mentioned category.
2 -
B = score most desirable for Best; V = score most de
sirable for Violators; D = score most desirable for doubtful.

 

__—Al

 

118

TAB LE XXI (Continued)

 

 

Parole Classification

 

I?"

Best versus Doubtful Doubtful versus Violators

 

 

.7

 

Dif- Score Level Dif- Score , Level
fer- Fa- CR of fer- Fa- CR of
ence vors Sig. ence vors Sig.
+0.09 B 0.18 0.134 -0.28 V 0.54 0.410
-—0.13 D 0.21 0.164 -0.07 V 0.11 0.084
-0.01 D 0.01 0.008 +1.21 D 1.89 0.938
+0.81 B 0.74 0.538 +1.21 D 1.22 0.774
+0.92 B 0.87 0.614 +1.54 D 1.49 0.860

 

 

 

 

119

sure of himself, more secure and adequate. The violator apparently

 

is not so sure of himself, does not have the same sense of security
or adequacy. Some writers have suggested that this feeling of in-

feriority is related to thoughts of feeling "not worthy," usually of

someone's love and affection or friendship. This is quite an inter-
esting finding because it suggests two possibilities. One is that the 7
return to crime is a form of compensation for the violator's feeling F
of inferiority. By doing something against the law and by outwitting F
the guardians of the law he proves his worth and also buys his at- _

tention and esteem from others of his kind. The other possibility

 

that suggests itself is that the feelings of inferiority are so hampering
the violator that he feels he cannot compete on the open market, either
in gainful employment or in personal relationships. On the one hand
he steals to get the things he cannot earn and on the other hand he
forces the attentions he cannot win (sex crimes).

The "doubtful" group was between the other two groups but
not significantly different from‘either.

The Guilford-Martin factor N is reported as indicating a lack
of nervous tenseness or irritability. In this regard, the "best" group
was very significantly less irritable or bothered by nervous tenseness
than were the violators. Again, the ”doubtful" group was between
the other two, but not differing to a significant degree from either
of the others. Nervous tenseness and irritability are manifestations
of a condition that could be the result of a great many causes. Such
conditions are frequently manifestations of emotional conflicts. The
writer hesitates to suggest an interpretation of the difference in the
thinking of these two groups in this regard. It might be, however,
that the fact that the ”best" of the parolees feels less nervous tense-
ness and irritability goes hand in glove with his feelings of confidence.

He is sure of himself and at peace with himself. He has either

120

solved his conflicts or has deve10ped a more satisfactory emotional
balance. This is only speculation. The only interpretation that can
safely be given, according to the available evidence, is that the vio-
lators feel more nervous tenseness and irritability than do the “best"
of the successful parolees, as measured by this inventory.

Tables XXII and XXIII report the same type of information for
the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR. A study of Table XXIII in-
dicates no significant differences. Apparently such factors as Social
Introversion-extraversion, Thinking Introversion—extraversion, De-
pression, Cycloid disposition, and Rhathymia, as measured by this
inventory, do not differentiate between the thinking of successful and

nonsuccessful parolee 5.

TABLE XXII

COMPARISONS OF THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF THE THREE PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE
GUILFORD INVENTORY OF FACTORS STDCR

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

‘actors Best Doubtful Violators
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
S 17.55 8.49 17.32 7.58 18.36 8.54
T 29.26 9.45 28.39 8.63 29.18 10.18
D 17.39 11.09 17.22 9.74 18.04 10.58
C 20.75 12.52 21.72 12.29 22.06 12.98
R 37.17 10.76 37.12 11.35 36.97 11.26

 

 

121

TABLE XXIII

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE THREE
PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE STDCR WITH THE
RE SULTANT CRITICAL RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

Parole Classification

 

Be st versus Violators

 

Factors

 

 

Dif - Sco re 2 Level
fer- Fa- CR of
ence1 vors Sig.
S ..................... -0.81 B 0.85 0.604
T ..................... +0.08 v 0.07 0.056
D ..................... -0.65 B 0.53 0.406
c -1.31 B 0.92 0.642
R ..................... +0.20 B 0.17 N“
/

 

+ indicates difference is algebraically greater for the
first-mentioned category.
2 -
B = score most desirable for Best; V : score most de
sirable for Violators; D = score most desirable for Doubtful.

 

 

TABLE XXIII (C ontinue d)

122

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

Best versus Doubtful Doubtful versus Violators
)if — Score Level Dif- Score Level
.er— Fa— CR of fer- Fa- CR of
nce vors Sig. ence vors Sig.
0.23 D 0.24 0.186 -1.04 D 1.09 0.724
+0.87 D 0.79 0.573 -0.79 D 0.71 0.522
+0.17 D 0.14 0.263 +0.82 V 0.68 0.501
-0.97 B 0.65 0.484 -0.34 D 0.23 0.182
+0.05 B 0.04 0.032 +0.15 D 0.11 0.088

 

 

 

123

The statistics for the Johnson Temperament Analysis are re-
ported in Tables XXIV and XXV. The most important fact appearing
from these tables is the very significant difference in favor of the
"best" group, with an also significant difference in favor of the
"doubtful" group, as compared with the violators, in the factor
Sympathetic. The author describes this characteristic as a trait
that undoubtedly arose as a biological necessity to insure the ade-
quate care of children. However, a study of the individual items
included in this scale would seem rather to indicate a general feel-
ing of well-being toward or regard for one's fellow men. The "best"
group of the successful parolees is extremely more sympathetic than
the violators, but the "doubtful" group of the successful parolees is
also significantly more sympathetic than the violators. Johnson does
not adequately define the trait, Sympathetic, in the manual for his
inventory. The items used to measure the trait are based on the
manifestations of the trait that permit an estimation of the degree
of the sympathetic trait in the individual but they do not indicate the
dynamics of the trait“. The writer does not feel that he has enough
information upon which to attempt an interpretation.

The other significant difference is in the trait described as
Nervous. The violator is much more nervous than the "best"
while the "doubtful" tends to be more like the "best" although this
difference is not significant. This finding is much like the finding
for the Guilford-Martin factor N which indicates a lack of nervous
tenseness or irritability. The reader will remember that there was
a significant difference in favor of the "best" of the parolees, as

in the Nervous scale for this inventory.

 

afi—rr-AFT»»—..—+—. . .. .
' 1:... ‘

TABLE XXIV

124

COMPARISONS OF THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

ANALYSIS

THE THREE PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE
JOHNSON TEMPERAMENT

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

Factors Doubtful Violators
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A 4.85 3.18 4.95 3.30 5.58 3.18
B 6.52 2.76 6.63 2.64 6.80 2.66
C 8.89 2.70 9.20 2.51 9.23 2.60
D 11.75 3.34 11.94 3.32 11.80 3.32
E 12.89 3.07 12.69 3.28 11.88 3.01
F 7.92 3.09 8.20 3.22 8.42 3.09
G 7.56 2.43 7.76 2.56 7.96 2.54
H 6.45 3.74 6.44 3.28 6.87 3.63
I 13.50 3.73 13.42 3.62 12.85 3.67

 

—_“”‘_‘17

"(z w-
I;

b
*- -.
. ._ ..

 

125

TABLE XXV

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE THREE
PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE JTA WITH THE
RESULTANT CRITICAL RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

 

Parole Classification

 

Best versus Violators

 

 

Factors 2

Dif- Score Level

fer- Fa- CR of

ence1 vors Sig.

A ..................... -0.73 B 2.04 0.958
B ..................... -0.28 B 0.90 0.681
c ..................... -0.34 v 1.16 0.752
D ............... .‘ ..... -0.05 V 0.14 0.101
E ..................... +1.01 B 2.95 0.996
F ..................... -0.50 B 1.43 0.846
G ..................... -o.4o B 1.33 10.816
H ..................... -o.42 B 1.03 0.696
I ..................... +0.65 B 1.58 0.884
4%

 

 

+ indicates difference is algebraically greater for the
first-mentioned group.
2 . t de-
B = score most desuable for Best; V a score mos
sirable for ViOIatOI'S; D = score most desirable for Doubtf‘fl-

 

 

126

TABLE XXV (Continued)

 

 

Parole Classification

 

Best versus Doubtful Doubtful versus Violators

1.”

 

 

 

if- Score Level Dif- Score 1 Level
er— Fa- CR of fer- Fa- CR of
nce vors Sig. ence vors Sig.
3.10 B 0.26 0.204 -0.63 D 1.63 0.894
0.11 B 0.35 0.268 -0.17 D 0.52 0.396
-0.31 D 0.99 0.678 -0.03 V 0.12 0.091
-0.19 D 0.37 0.288 +0.14 D 0.48 0.368
+0.20 B 0.51 0.392 +0.81 D 2.16 0.960
-0.28 B 0.73 0.532 -0.22 D 0.59 0.441
-0 .20 B 0.68 0 .502 -0.20 D 0.67 0.496
+0.01 D 0.02 0.016 -0.43 D 1.08 0.718
+0.08 B 0.19 0.150 +0.57 D 1.33 0.815

 

 

'M‘. S sus-mus “.-.—l W

“a." ‘.:

127

The differences between the successful and the nonsuccessful
lees on the remaining traits measured by the Johnson Tempera-
1: Analysis did not prove to be significant. Therefore, such traits
Depressive, Active, Cordial, Subjective, Aggressive, Critical, and
E—mastery, as measured by this inventory, did not differentiate
ween those who succeed on parole and those who fail.

The same type of statistics are reported for the California
ental Health Analysis in Tables XXVI and XXVII. The one factor
1 which there are significant differences is that identified by the
uthors as Satisfying Work and Recreation. There is very little
lifference in this regard between the ”doubtful" and the violator
groups, but both are significantly less satisfied in their work and
recreation than the ”best." The description of this trait in the
manual of the Mental Health Analysis outlines the manifestations by
which a sense of satisfaction with work and recreation are revealed
but does not aid in an understanding of the ‘dynamics of the char-

acteristic. The writer's interpretation is a subjective one, without
conclusive evidence upon which it can be based. However, it seems
to the writer that satisfaction in one's work and recreation reflects
an attitude that stems, again, from the individual's feelings of self-
confidence, security, and adequacy. On the other hand, it might be

that the feeling of satisfaction in work and recreation results in a

feeling of confidence, security, and adequacy. One of the interesting

facts in regard to this trait is that it is the first trait on which the

"doubtful" group is significantly different from the ”best" group. In

this regard the "doubtful" group and the violators are both signifi-

cantly less satisfied with their work and recreation.
Although none of the other subtests on the Mental Health

Analysis resulted in significant differences, the trend indicated by

one subtest should be discussed because of' its relationship to subtests

 

TABLE XXVI

128

COMPARISONS OF THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

THE THREE PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE
CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH ANALYSIS

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

Factors Best Doubtful Violators
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A 16.30 3.12 15.67 3.13 15.88 3.68
B 16.77 2.51 16.15 2.94 16.31 3.14
C 12.72 3.95 12.37 3.96 12.51 3.93
D 14.61 2.82 13.86 3.42 13.88 3.45
E 17.10 2.42 16.52 2.91 16.90 2.83
Assets 77.12 11.63 75.06 12.17 75.20 13.57
L 12.19 3.23 12.40 3.14 12.05 3.12
M 12.02 3.99 11.77 3.96 11.30 3.94
N 13.74 3.71 13.13 3.76 13.02 3.90
0 18.32 2.35 18.15 3.05 18.49 2.16
P 15.56 3.23 15.69 3.50 16.11 3.48
.iabilities 71.66 13.11 71.39 13.92 71.08 13.32

 

 

" ‘3 it». —" 42336;

. 0‘,‘ 3J-

I?»
33*.

 

 

 

TABLE XXVII

E DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE THREE
PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE CMHA WITH THE
RESULTANT CRITICAL RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

 

Parole Classification

 

Best versus Violators

 

Factors

 

Dif- Score2 Level

fer- Fa- CR of

ence1 vors Sig.
..................... +0.42 B 1.13 0.742
3 ..................... +0.46 B 1.47 0.858
C ..................... +0.21 B 0.48 0.368
D ..................... +0.73 B 1.95 0.949
E ..................... +0.20 3‘ 1.05 0.706
Assets .................. +1.92 B 1.38 0.832
1.. ................ \ ..... +0.14 B 0.38 0.296
M ..................... +0.72 B 1.66 0.903
N +0.72 B 1.72 0.914
0 -0.17 V 0.69 0.444
P -0.55 V 1.49 0.864
Liabilities .......... . . . . . +0.58 B . 0.40 0.310

 

 

l + indicates difference is algebraically greater for the
first-mentioned category.

B = score most desirable for Best; V = score most de-
sirable for Violators; D = score most desirable for Doubtful.

130

TAB LE XXVII (C ontinue d)

 

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

Best versus Doubtful Doubtful versus Violators
Dif- Score Level Dif- Score Level
ier- Fa- CR of fer- Fa- CR of
ence vors Sig. ence vors Sig.
+0.63 B 1.72 0.915 -0.21 V 0.53 0.404
+0.62 B 1.89 0.940 -0.16 V 0.43 0.334
+0.35 B 0.74 0.538 -0.14 V 0.29 0.212

+0.75 B 1.99 0.953 -0.02 V 0.03 0.024
+0.58 B 1.87 0.938 -0.38 V 1.13 0.741
+2.06 B 1.47 0.857 -0.14 V 0.10 0.074
+0.21 D 0.57 0.424 +0.35 D 0.94 0.652
+0.25 B 0.55 0.410 +0.47 D 1.02 0.792

+0.61 B 1.45 0.852 +0.11 D 0.25 0.196

+0.17 B 0.54 0.412 -0.34 V 1.10 0.728

-0.13 D 0.35 0.272 -0.42 V 1.01 0.688

+0.27 B 0.17 0.134 +0.31 D 0.19 0.150

‘

 

—A

 

131

.her inventories. The results of the scale labeled Nervous
festations are almost in complete disagreement to those found

8 Guilford-Martin GAMIN and the Johnson Temperament Anal-
In this case it is the violators who tend to be most free from
00.3 manifestations while the "best" group are more sympto-

ic in this regard. While the difference is not significant, it is

reaching significance, and is large enough to cause concern over :1-
apparent contradiction with the findings of the other two inven- a
ries. The reader will remember that the Guilford-Martin GAMIN r‘
1dicated a significant difference in that the ”best" were much less .; ~
rritable or hampered by nervous tenseness than the violators. The E1

iohnson Temperament Analysis also resulted in a significant differ-
ence in that the violators were more nervous than the "best." Both
differences were significant and in agreement. The finding on the
Mental Health Analysis, although not significant, is not in agreement
with the former two. In view of the fact that the other two are sig-
nificant and are in agreement, it would seem to raise serious doubt
about the validity of the Nervous scale of the Mental Health Analysis.
If all three inventories are measuring the same factor, and they
should be inasmuch as they are labeled alike, then the results for
all three should be alike in relationship to parole outcome.

The CR‘s for the remainder of the traits included in the Men-
tal Health Analysis do not indicate significant differences This
means that such traits as Behavioral Immaturity, Emotional Insta-
bility, Feelings of Inadequacy. Physical Defects, Outlook and Goals,
Close Personal Relationships, Inter-Personal Skills, and Social Par-

ticipation, as measured by this inventory, do not differentiate between
successful and nonsuccessful parolees.
Tables XXVIII and XXIX report the statistics for the Minne-

sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The only significant

132
TABLE XXVIII
IPARISONS OF THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

'I-IE THREE PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE MINNESOTA
MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY

 

Parole Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

es Best Doubtful Violators
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
19.29 4.94 19.76 4.47 19.43 4.49
7.29 6.86 7.81 8.10 7.31 7.12
15.70 4.94 15.56 5.34 15.54 5.13
5.59 2.69 5.46 2.81 5.09 2.59
1mm 23.52 3.87 23.90 4.50 24.15 5.24
Pt 10.69 6.98 11.29 7.78 11.59 7.57
Pt“) 26.21 5.64 26.88 5.23 26.33 5.51
Sc 14.20 10.16 14.61 11.31 14.55 10.78
Sc“) 29.88 8.94 30.05 9.70 29.67 8.81
Mif 26.36 3.68 26.51 3.85 26.41 4.82
Pd 21.06 4.02 21.15 3.48 22.05 3.76
Pd“) 27.15 4.35 27.31 3.63 28.01 4.23
Hs 7.16 5.31 6.47 4.62 6.81 4.54
115“) 15.41 5.40 14.66 5.24 14.70 4.78
Ma 18.61 4.85 19.20 5.03 19.10 5.11
Mam 21.71 4.50 22.28 4.42 22.19 4.71
Hy 20.57 5.40 20.39 4.75 19.90 5.54
Pa 10.82 3.95 10.29 4.28 10.76 3.75

 

 

u ..4 ..n-g-u anmm- w.m‘T
.-

'E"UIA

 

 

133

TABLE XXIX

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE THREE
PAROLE CATEGORIES FOR THE MMPI WITH THE
RESULTANT CRITICAL RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

 

Parole Clas sification

 

Best versus Violators

 

Scale 5

 

Dif- Score2 Level
fer- Fa- CR of

ence1 vors Sig.

D ..................... -0.14 B 0.26 0.202
F ..................... -0.02 B 0.03 0.024
K ..................... +0.16 v 0.60 0.451
L ..................... +0.50 v 1.62 0.895
Mfm ................... -o.63 B .17 0.758
Pt ..................... -0.90 B 1.06 0.711
2

mm ................... -0.12 B 0.18 0.14
Sc ..................... -0.35 B 0.28 0.220
ch) ................... +0.21 v 0.20 0.158
Mff .................... -0.05 0.10 0.078
Pd .................... -0.99 B 2.17 0.970
Pd(c) ................... -0.86 B 1.72 0.914
Hs .................... +0.35 v 0.60 0.231
H .................. +0.71 V 1.18 0.763
8(C) . 9

Ma .................... -0.49 B 0.84 0.59
630

Ma(c) .................. -0.48 B 0.90 0. 06

Hy .................... +0.67 v 1.05 0.7

Pa .................... +0.06 v- 0.14 0,104
_ /

 

 

+ indicates difference is algebraically greater for the
first-mentioned category.

2 J
B = score most desirable for Best; V a score most de

sirable for Violator; D z score most desirable for Doubtful.

 

4-1

TABLE XXIX (C ontinued)

134

 

 

Parole Clas sification

 

 

 

Best versus Doubtful Doubtful versus Violators
Dif-s Score Level Dif- Score Level
fer- Fa- CR of fer- Fa- CR of
ence vors Sig. ence vors Sig.
-0.47 B 0.57 0.432 +0.23 V 0.55 0.416
+0.52 B 0.56 0.428 +0.50 V 0.53 0.402
+0.14 D 0.22 0.174 +0.02 V 0.03 0.025
+0.13 D 0.39 0.296 +0.37 V 1.11 0.732
—0.38 B 0.75 0.540 -0.25 D 0.41 0.318
-0.60 B 0.66 0.490 -0.30 D 0.32 0.250
-0.67 B 1.02 0.694 +0.55 V 0.84 0.600
«0.41 B 0.30 0.238. +0.06 V 0.04 0.034
--0.17 B 0.15 0.118 +0.38 V 0.33 0.258

-0.15 0.45 0.346 +0.10 0.19 0.153
-0.09 B 0.19 0.142 -0.90 D 2.04 0.958
-0.16 B 0.33 0.258 -0.70 D 1.46 0.854
+0.69 D 0.56 0.422 -0.34 D 0.60 0.231
+0.75 D 1.19 0.764 -0.04 D 0.11 0.086
-0.59 B 0.96 0.664 +0.10 V 0.15 0.118
-0.57 B 1.08 0.718 -0.42 D 0.17 0.134
+0.18 D 0.29 0.228 +0.49 V 0.78 0.564
+0.53 D 1.07 0.714 -0.47 D 0.96 0.664

 

 

 

‘C-t11 a: r-W‘j ‘ “QR-7

 

135

difference for this inventory was obtained where it might have been
expected, on the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale. However, it is

important to note that the difference is significant for both the
Accord-

"best" and the "doubtful" as compared with the violators.
ing to the manual of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
the Pd scale measures the similarity of the subject to a group of
persons whose main difficulty lies in their absence of deep emotional

4

response, their inability to profit from experience, and their disre-

 

gard of social mores. The manual goes on to say:

Although sometimes dangerous to themselves or others,
Except by gr,

these persons are commonly likable and intelligent.
the use of an objective instrument of this sort, their trend toward

the abnormal is frequently not detected until they are in serious
trouble. They may often go on behaving like perfectly normal
people for several years between one outbreak and another. The
most frequent digressions from the social mores are lying, steal-
They may

ing, alcohol or drug addiction, and sexual immorality.
have short periods of true psychopathic excitement or depression
following the discovery of a series of their asocial or antisocial
deeds. They differ from the criminal types in their inability to
profit from experience and in that they seem to commit asocial
acts with little thought of possible gain to themselves or of avoid-

ing discovery.
From the evidence resulting from this study, it can be said that the

violators admit to significantly more manifestations of the Psycho-
of the

athic Deviate than do either the "best" or the "doubtful"

1ccessful parolees.
Some writers have suggested that there are two distinct types

individuals in the penal institution. Various names have been given
group such as the "situational offender," the "accidental offender,"
The other group is identified as the

' ' oc casional offender."

the
Suggestions have been made that there

nopathic personality.
Ld be different institutions and methods of treating the two types

136

of inmates. Much more study of the psychopathic deviate in our
penal institutions is indicated.

There were no other significant differences for the various
scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Such sub-
tests as the Lie Score, the Validity Score, the Correction Score, the
Hypochandriasis scale, the Depression scale, the Hysteria scale, the
Interest scales, the Paranoia scale, the Psychasthenia scale, the

Schizophrenia scale, and the Hypomania scale, as represented in

' _ _~‘«_.-F :1, 1
O

this inventory, did not differentiate between successful and unsuccess-

ful parolees.

 

However, the findings on one scale, the Interest scale, should 1‘
be discussed more fully because of their relationship to an Interest
scale on one of the other inventories. On the Male component of the
MMPI Interest scale, the "best" group had lower mean scores than
the violators, which on this scale indicates a more masculine interest

pattern. This indicates a tendency toward agreement with the signifi-
cant finding on the GAMIN, that the "best" and the "doubtful" were
more masculine in attitudes and interests than the violators.

It is interesting to note that when the correction (K) score
is applied to the Pd scale, there is a trend toward a significant
iifference in the same direction as reported for the uncorrected
cale although it is not as significant as on the uncorrected scale.
m the other hand, when the correction is applied to the Hypochon-
riasis (Hs) scale, there is a much stronger trend toward signifi-
nce. In this experiment the use of K sometimes intensifies the
{nificance of the differences, but on three of the five scales where
is applied it tended to reduce what significance there was before

re ction.

137

Summary

 

This chapter has dealt with an analysis of the forty-nine
author-identified factors of adjustment included in the five inventories
used in this study. The critical-ratio test of significance was ob-

tained for all factors on the basis of three comparisons: the "best"

7

of all the successful parolees versus the violators; the "best" ver-
sus the ”doubtful" group of the successful parolees; and the "doubt-
ful" group versus the violators. There were few significant differ-

ences obtained, but those that were obtained indicate definite differ-

" m1:- Lame... ~:- mm A. ...-hem

E ‘1 1

ences in certain characteristics for the three groups.

The differentiating characteristics of the "best" group are
that they are more masculine in attitudes and interests than the vio-
lators; that they are more confident than the violators; that they are
less nervous than the violators; that they are more sympathetic than
the violators; that they are more satisfied with work and recreation
than either the violators or the "doubtful" group; and that they indi-
cate less psych0pathic deviation than the violators.

The distinguishing characteristics of the "doubtful" group are
that they are more like the "best" in that they are more masculine
in attitudes and interests than the violators; and also in that they are
nore sympathetic than the violators. Like the "best" they also indi-
:ate less psychoPathic deviation than the violators. However, on one
ignificant trait they are more like the violators in that they are also
ignificantly less satisfied in work and recreation than the "best."

The violator is distinguished by less masculine attitudes than
ther the "best" or "doubtful" groups; by more feelings of inferior-
' than the "best" group; by more nervousness than the "best"; by
b appearing as sympathetic as‘either the "best" or the "doubtful"

)ups; by not being as satisfied with work and recreation as the

 

138

“best"; and by indicating more psychopathic deviation than all of

the successful parolees, both the "best" and the "doubtful" groups.

n sue-x: y- u—T-uj—g'r
,

-...
....-

a -'~".'.

 

. It... .. lu‘fo
a}... . . i .
l i y D.

 

CHAPTER V
THE ITEMS AND THEIR VALIDITY

A total of 1,309 items were included in the five adjustment
inventories used in this study. That there are differences in the
thinking of successful and unsuccessful parolees was indicated by
The writer felt that an item

tCTYTn‘ "Ru-'1. ' n; ‘1. 5.1-17
A .- ‘

the findings of the previous chapter.
analysis would result in a more reliable and exacting measurement

of these differences than could be obtained by using the subtest re-

The item analysis did reveal a wide range of significance

sults.
among items, and the complete sets of answer sheets for the total

sample were scored for the most significant items to determine whether

or not these items differentiated between the parole outcome for suc-

cessful and nonsuccessful parolees. The item analysis, the most sig-

nificant items, and their validation are discussed in this chapter.

The Item Analysis

One hundred papers from each of the extreme groups were

156d in the item analysis. The reader will remember that in Table
1

'I the number of answer sheets for each of the three classifications
»r the five adjustment inventories were reported. The 100 answer

leets were selected from each of the five inventories for the "best"

the successful parolees and for the violators by a method of

Supra, p. 91.

 

 

140

random sampling. The method used was to take every other paper,

and then divide the number needed to complete the 100 papers into

the number of remaining papers to learn if every third, fourth, or

fifth paper would be taken. For example, for the "best" group on
the GAMIN there were 159 answer sheets. The writer first shuffled

the answer sheets so that they were not in any specific order. He r
then took every other answer sheet for the item analysis, starting F
with the second paper. Going through the 159 answer sheets in this i
manner yielded 79 answer sheets for the item analysis and left 80. :
There were still 21 answer sheets needed to make the total of 100 i
by

Dividing 80 by 21 indicated that

to be used in the item analysis.
Tak-

every fourth paper would come closest to the number desired.

ing every fourth paper and adding it to the 79 previously selected

The one hundredth paper was taken from the

made a total of 99.
This

center of the 60 unselected papers remaining in this group.

process was repeated for the "best" and the violators for each of

the five inventories.
The total number of answer sheets that had been obtained

during the original administration of the inventories included 2,210.

One thousand of these were used in the item analysis. For a number

of reasons every inmate taking part in the study did not complete

Lll of the inventories. It will also be remembered that a few unco-s

perative inmates spoiled some of the answer sheets, either by leav-
1g out whole blocks of items, by answering all items one way or

iother alike in one block, or by alternating responses to the extent
at these answer sheets could not be retained as part of the study.

pnsequently, there were not complete sets of five answer sheets for

ery inmate included in the study. Altogether, there were 384 com-

te sets of answer sheets, which included 1,920 of the 2,210 papers.

- hundred and thirty of the 1,000 papers used in the item analysis

141
were in the incomplete group. It was the writer's intention to re-

score the complete sets of answer sheets using those items that sig-

nificantly differentiated between successful and nonsuccessful parolees

and to relate the total scores to parole outcome. By this method of

random sampling only 870 of the 1,920 answer sheets which comprised

the complete set that were later rescored were also used in the item by
analysis, leaving 1,050, or 54.7 percent, that were not included in the a
item analysis. :5
An ideal validation study would be to score a completely inde- E
pendent set of papers by using the items found in this study to sig- :3
i"

nificantly differentiate between successful and nonsuccessful parolees
and relate that score to the independent group's parole outcome. This

would be true cross-walidation. Because such cross-+validation could

not be carried out in the present study, an attempt was made to make

the validation as nearly ideal as possible. This would mean select-

ing papers for the item analysis in such a manner as to leave as
many papers as possible that were independent of the item analysis.
The use of all the answer sheets available, rather than just the com—

plete sets, added 290 answer sheets to the sample from which the

papers for the item analysis were drawn. One hundred and thirty

of these were included in the item analysis, composing 10.3 percent
31' the total papers included, thus making a more ideal cross-walida‘
ion than would have resulted if just the complete sets were used.

The critical ratio of the difference between the percentage of
uccessful parolees answering "Yes" or "No" to the item and the
arcentage of violators answering "Yes" or "No" to the item, depend-
g on which difference was the greater, was the method used in the
rm analysis. The difference was not always the same for the alter-
te responses because some of the parolees did not always answer

item. On three of the inventories a "'2" or "Undecided" choice

142

was permitted and on the other two inventories with just the two
Con-

choice alternates, some of the parolees just did not respond.

sequently, the differences between the responses of the two groups

for both the alternate answers were recorded and the alternate answer

with the larger difference was the one used for computing the critical
ratio obtained from the differences

ratio. This means that the critical
in the percentage of reSponses to an item will sometimes be for the

”Yes” or "True" alternate of the item and sometimes for the "No"

The response for which the critical ratio was

or "False" alternate.
computed will be indicated for those items with significant differences

in a discussion of those items below.
The formula used for the critical ratio of the difference of

 

percentages follows:
D 2
CR 3 % GD? a up + 0':
(7qu o 1 2
is the stand-

where D% is the difference between the percents; 0'
1
is the standard error of

ard error of the first percentage; and up
2

the second percentage.
Fortunately, Edgerton and Patterson had deve10ped a table of

standard errors for percentages, which proved to be extremely time-

saving.
The CR's for all 1,309 items are presented in Appendix C.

There were 102 items significant beyond the .95 level of significance

Moreover, there were several other items with CR's that resulted in
The item

levels of significance just a little below the .95 level.

Harold A. Edgerton and Donald G. Patterson, "Table of
Standard Errors and Probable Errors of Percentages for Numbers
of Cases," reprinted from The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

X, No. 3, September, 1926, pp. 378-391.

143

analysis had resulted in such few items for which there was a sig-
nificant difference that the writer felt those items that were near the
minimum CR acceptable might add some weight to a composite score

for differentiating between successful and nonsuccessful parolees.

The writer realizes that the .95 (.05) and .99 (.01) levels of signifi-
He further

cance are those usually held to as tests of significance.

realizes that these levels are arbitrary and that accepting a lower
level means lowering one's standards of exactness. However, when
the writer began to think of using weighted scores,

lower his standards a little to the .93 (.07) level of significance,

3 he decided to

which also permitted the inclusion of those items that had been just
This

below the previously acceptable minimum level of significance.

was done with the realization that judgments of significance are not
This would

all-or-none, but range over a wide scale of probability.
mean that a difference which resulted in a CR of 1.82, with the

resulting level of significance of .93, would be due to "chance" not

more than once in fifteen trials.
By the acceptance of the .93 level of significance as the mini-
Table XXX

mum, the total number of items was increased to 132.

reports the number of items from each inventory and the percentage
of each inventory's items that met the criterion of significance adOpted

Although this study was not designed as a validation

for this study.
for the various inventories on a population of this nature, Table XXX

is included because it will be of interest to some readers.

The writer cannot explain the reason why there should be such
a variation in the percentage of items for the various inventories

reflecting significant differences, except in relationship to the number

3
Infra, p. 157.

144

TABLE XXX

THE NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ITEMS WITH SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES FROM EACH INVENTORY

 

Significant Items

 

 

Inventory
Number Percent
GAMIN ......................... 21 11.3
STDCR ......................... 10 5.6
JTA ........................... 38 20.9
CMHA .......................... 21 10.5
MMPI .......................... 42 7.4

 

 

of factors in each inventory on which there were significant differ-
ences, and then the relationship is not consistent. There were no
significant differences on the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR
and the percentage of items on which there were significant differ-
ences is the lowest of the five inventories, as one would expect.
There was only one factor with significant differences on both the
California Mental Health Analysis and on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, and the percentage of items with significant
differences reflects this fact. The fact that there were two factors
with significant differences on the Johnson Temperament Analysis
is also reflected in the proportion of items with significant differ-
ences.
On this basis, then, the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors

GAMIN should have a very high percentage of items with significant

145

differences because there were significant differences for three of

its five factors. However, such was not the case, indicating that a
large proportion of the discriminatory ability of those factors, for

this population, rested in a comparably small number of items.

The items for which there were significant differences in
All of the items for a specific inventory

reSponses are listed below.
The item number, as it appeared in the in-

are listed as a group.
The letter or group of letters

ventory, is given before each item.

following the item number indicates the scale or scales by which the
The

authors of the inventories use that item in their inventories.
In some instances

coding of the scales is that used in Chapter 111.

there are no code letters, indicating that the item was not used in
Hathaway and McKinley point

the scoring of a scale in the inventory.
out that the last two hundred items (items 367 through 566) of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory are experimental items
and are not included in the published scales. There was no indica-
tion in the manual of the Johnson Temperament Analysis why item 2

was not scored on any of Johnson's scales.
The notation after the item is the response for which the
The reader will note that the answer

critical ratio was computed.
This is to indicate whether the differ‘

is preceded by a + or a -
ence is in the direction of the successful parolees (+) or in the di-

It also indicates the way the item is

rection of the violators (-).
It was necessary to use positive and negative scoring

to be scored.
because some of the items had different CR's for the alternate

4

Supra, pp. 73-78.
5
Hathaway and McKinley, op. cit., p. 5.

146

responses, as previously discussed Take, for example, item 137

of the Johnson Temperament Analysis, which was answered as fol-

 

lows:
Yes Np
Successful ................... 10 83
Violators .................... £4 13
Difference ................... 14- 10+
Critical ratio ................. 2.66 1.70

The "No" answer is not significant and cannot be used in scoring

the item for parolability. The "Yes" answer is significant, but only
if it is scored negatively. Because there were several items of this

nature, it became necessary to include some negative-scored items

and some positive-scored items. In those cases where the CR was

the same for both reaponses the positive scoring was indicated.
It means that the CR

In

other words, this notation has two meanings:

was computed for the answer indicated, because the difference in
percentage of responses by the successful and the violators was
greater for that answer, and the difference was in the direction of

the successful, if +, or the violator, if -; it also means that in future
The

All

scoring the response indicated is to be scored either + or -
last notation listed with each item is the CR for that item.

critical ratios shown are 1.82 or greater corre3ponding to a level

of significance of .93 or better.
There were twenty-one items included in the Guilford-Martin

Inventory of Factors GAMIN for which significant differences between
the percentages of responses by the successful parolees and by the

violators were found. They follow:6

6
The code letters below refer to the scale for which the
item is scored by the inventory. Factor M is Masculinity versus

19.

32.
44.

47.

49.

76.

80.

92.

108.

116.

117.

124.

Do you have one or more abilities in
which you believe you are superior to
most other people? ................

Are there ever times when you feel so
jumpy you could throw things at people
if you did not control yourself? .......

Do you feel bored much of the time?

In a group activity do you often find
yourself compelled to play an unimpor-
tant part? ......................

Do you feel that you are lacking in
self-control? ....................

Are you ever afraid that you cannot live
up to the standards your parents set
for you? .......................

Do you frequently feel self-conscious
in the presence of important people?

Do your interests tend to change
quickly?

Do you often find it difficult to sleep
at night? .......................

Do you ever wish you could have been
born at a different time or place or in
a different family than you were?

Are you frequently in a state of inner
excitement or turmoil? .............

Can you (or could you) walk past a
graveyard alone at night without
feeling uneasy?

000000000000000000

Would you rate yourself as an
impulsive individual?

-Yes

-Yes

+No

+No

+No

+No

-Yes

-Yes

-Yes

+No

+Yes

+No

147

1.98

1.98

1.92

2.45

1.91

1.87

2.86

2.08

2.34

2.98

3.39

2.02

1.85

 

Femininit-y; N is Lack of Nervous Tenseness; I is Lack of Inferior-
ity Feelings; G is General Pressure for Overt Activity; and A is
Ascendancy versus Submissiveness.

128. A.
141. N
146. A
155. I

169. N
179. I

182. I
183. N

Do you ever take the initiative to
enliven a dull party?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Can you stick to a tiresome task for
a long time without being prodded or
encouraged? .....................

When in a restaurant you are served
stale or inferior food, do you usually
make a vigorous protest about it?

Do you sometimes wish that you were
more attractive than you are? ........

Are there times when you feel as if
your nerves were raw or "on edge"?

Do you often find that you cannot
make up your mind until the time
for action is past? ................

Do you often show yourself up to your
own disadvantage?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Do you become upset rather easily? . . . .

+No

+Yes

-Yes

+No

+No

-Yes

+No

-Yes

148

2.14

2.14

1.85

1.85

2.18

2.30
2.04

Significant differences were found for ten of the items, of the

Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR.

They are the following:7

 

12. DC Do you daydream frequently? ......... -No 2.58
14. DC Are you inclined to worry over possible

misfortunes ? ..................... +No 2 .94
57. RC Would you like a position in which you

changed from one kind of task to another

frequently during the day? ........... +Yes 2.52
80. DS Are you troubled with feelings of

inferiority? ..................... +No 2.46
82. STDR Are you inclined to take life too

seriously? ....... _ ............... +No 2.99

7

S is Social lntroversion-Extraversion; T is Thinking

Introversion-Extraversion; D is Depression; C is Cycloid dispo-
sition; and R is Rhathymia.

146. D
148. TRS

169. TC

Are you inclined to keep your opinion
to yourself during group discussions
(not class discussions)?

Are you much concerned over the

morals of others?

Do you feel tired most of the time?

Is it easy for you to act naturally
at a party?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Do you like to indulge in a reverie
(daydreaming) ? ...................

+Yes

+No

+Yes

-No

149

2.35

1.98
2.36

1.97

2.64

The item analysis of the Johnson Temperament Analysis re-

sulted in thirty-eight items for which there were significant differ-

ences.

19.

21.

36.

45.

8
They are:
Is one motive for S to go places so
that he can talk about having been
there? .........................

Does S think the government is
spending too much on relief and
pensions?

Does s talk slowly (making due
allowance for age)?

Would S buy an article at the cheaper
price if he noticed that the clerk has
asked less than the price tag indicates,
apparently having misread it?

Does S maintain uniformly, courteous
behavior to other members of his

family ? ........................

Does 5 eat slowly (making due
allowance for age)?

000000000000000

+No

+No

+Yes

+No

+Yes

+Yes

1.98

2.19

1.84

2.05

2.19

2.13

 

B-Depressive;

These factors were identified as follows:
C-Active; D-Cordial; E-Sympathetic; F-Subjective;

G-Aggressive; H-Critical; and I-Self-mastery.

A-Nervous;

51.

52.

57.

59.

61.

70.

84.

90.

95.

99.

105.

110.

122.

127.

129.

Is S so sympathetic with those he sees
in pain as to want to do something

about it ? .......................

Is 5 likely to give way to the wishes
of others rather than to seek to have
his own way? ....................

Does S make a practice of offering
help to motorists who need help,
but do not ask for it? ..............

Does S accept defeat easily without
any evidence of his disappointed
feeling? ........................

Does S get into scrapes occasionally?

Can S relax easily when sitting or
lying down? .....................

Does S stand by and avoid protecting
an animal from needless suffering?

In an automobile accident in which S
is involved does he really try‘ to see
that any damage he did is made good?

Is S usually able to steady a difficult
situation where "others lose their

heads " ? .......................

Is S independent in making a judgment
uninfluenced by whether he likes or

' dislikes the leading supporter of the

proposal in question ? ..............

Is S considered cherry by some

people ? ........................

Is S relatively unaffected in listening
to emotional music? ...............

Is S almost free from being suspicious
of the actions of others? ............

Do death, sickness, pain, and sorrow
enter largely into S's dreams? .......

Does S think as well of those with whom
he has a disagreement, as before? .....

+Yes

+Yes

+Yes

+Yes

-Yes

+Yes

+No

+Yes

+Yes

+No

+Yes

+No

150

2.38

2.86

2.21

1.85

1.84

1.98

2.06

1.97

1.91

2.00

2.04

2.13

2.80

2.24

2.33

132.
133.

135.

136.

137.

138.

142.

151.

1

55.

156.

157.

158.

159.
160.

161.

167.

Is S hard to please? ...............

Does S carry out assignments

promptly and systematically? .........

Is S rather optimistic about oppor-

tunities for young people? ...........

Is 8 "touchy" on several things

about himself ? ...................

Is 5 bothered at times with the idea

that nobody cares for him? ..........

Does S look ahead and fail to smile
and show interest when passing a
beautiful child?

Does S find that a minor failure or
poor showing of his can be quickly
forgotten?

Do companions like to be with S?

Does S when on a picnic find himself
sometimes unable to share the good

spirits of the others? ..............

Does 5 think well of most people, as to
only rarely speak slightingly of them?

Does 5 show a cordial attitude only to

close friends if at all? .............

Does S think someone does not like
him and speaks critically about S to

others ? ........................

Does S smile or laugh a good deal? . . .

Can S see things as others see them,
when he wishes to?

Does 8, when he has a grievance
straightened out, continue disgruntled

for a while ?

Does S find it annoying to have any
criticism made of himself even though
justified and from which he could

profit ?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

+No

+Yes

+No

+No

-Yes

-Yes

+Yes

+No

+Yes

+No

-Yes

+Yes

+Yes

+No

+No

151

1.90

2.17

2.73

2.14

2.66

2.05

1.88
1.89

2.04

1.82

2.26

2.33
1.94

2.25

2.54

2.83

152

174. D Is 5 appealed to strongly by young
lovers who are hampered by

opposition? ..................... -Yes 2.26

The California Mental Health Analysis included twenty-one
items for which the difference in the percentage of responses by
successful parolees and the percentage of reSponses by the violators
was significant. These twenty-one items follow:

9. B Can you keep people from feeling too
embarrassed when they make a mis—

take? ......................... +Yes 2.17
16. D Do you find that the type of work you
are doing is sufficiently interesting? . . . +Yes 1.92
22. E Do you believe that you should always
be honest in your dealings with people? . +Yes 2.46
28. A Do you have one or more close friends
of your own sex? ................. +Yes 2.32
29. A Do you feel that some of your neighbors
deserve your friendship? ............ +Yes 2.19
31. M Do you often feel as though you are
held back from doing things that you
would like to do? ................. +No 2.00
51. L Have you frequently been able to get
even with people you dislike by ignoring
them? ......................... -No 3.18
56. B Do you make a practice of showing
people that you recognize their abilities?. -No 1.87
64. C Do you sometimes travel or go camping
with people of your own age? ........ +Yes 2.56

 

9 The scales of this inventory are identified as follows:
A - Close Personal Relationship; B - Interpersonal Skills; C -
Social Participation; D - Satisfying Work and Recreation; E «-
Outlook and Goals; L - Behavioral Immaturity; M - Emotional
Instability; N - Feelings of Inadequacy; O - Physical Defects; P -
Nervous Manifestations.

65.

73.

82.

100.

127.

135.

147.

152.

153.

176.

177.

190.

C

Does it seem that you are left out of
things you would like very much to be
in? ...........................

Do you believe that people who do what
is right will eventually be rewarded?

Are you frequently dissatisfied because
your plans do not work out satisfactor-

ily ?

Are you frequently bothered by eye-
strain?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Do the members of your family seem
to believe in your honesty and truth-

fulness ?

Have you often felt that you have more

than your share of bad luck? .........

Do you seem to catch cold easily? .....

Are many people so unpleasant that you
are justified in treating them with in-

difference ? .....................

Do you have any brothers, sisters, or
other close relatives who are as friendly

to you' as they should be? ...........

Do members of your family seem to
like your friends?

Is there someone to whom you can go

if you are in trouble? ..............

Do you usually like to be where there

is much activity? .................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

+No

+Yes

-Yes

+Yes

-Yes

+Yes

~Yes

+Yes

+Yes

-No

+Yes

153

3.43

2.35

2.14

2.36

2.80

2.00

2.12

2.30

2.64

2.09

2.60

2.38

There were forty‘two items for which significant differences

were found as a result of the item analysis of the Minnesota Multi-

They are the following:10

phasic Personality Inventory.

10
The following are the meanings for the code letters of

this inventory: F - Validity; K - Correction; L -— Lie; Hs - Hypo-
chondriasis; D - Depression; Hy - Hysteria; Pd - Psychopath; Mm
- Interest (Male); Mf - Interest (Female); Pa - Paranoia; Pt -
Psychasthenia; Sc - Schizophrenia; and Ma - Hypomania.

14. F Ihave diarrhea once a month or

more .

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

45. L Ido not always tell the truth.

1am in just as good physical
health as most of my friends.

51. 011st

1 am liked by most people who
know me ....................

54. F

1am almost never bothered by
pains over the heart or in my
chest.

55. 14st

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

As a youngster I was suspended
from school one or more times

for cutting up .

56. F

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I do many things which I regret
afterwards (I regret things more
or more often than others seem

to) ........................

94. PdPt

97. MaSc At times I have a strong urge to

do something harmful or shocking. .

115. FMme I believe in a life hereafter.
117. MmePa Most people are honest chiefly

through fear of being caught. .....

118. Pd In school I was sometimes sent

to the principal for cutting up .....

126. Mme I like dramatics.

I commonly wonder what hidden

136. Hy
reason another person may have

for doing something nice for me. . .

When I was a child, I belonged to
a crowd or gang that tried to stick
together through thick and thin.

143. Ma

I would rather win than lose in a
game.

150. L

I have never felt better in my
life than I do now.

1 60. KDHy

My people treat me more like a
child than a grown-up.

212- MaSc

+True

- True

+True

+True

+T rue

+False

-False

+False
-False

+False

+False

+False

-Fa1 se

+False

+False

+False

+False

154

2.90
2.08

1.91

2.38

2.18

1.84

1.84

2.22
1.82

2.02

2.56

2.74

2.45

1.86

1.93

3.05

2.04

1
155

1 224. Pd My parents have often objected
to the kind of people I went
around with .................. —True 2.84
237. Pd My relatives are nearly all in
sympathy with me. ............ -False 1.98
247. F Ihave reason for feeling jealous
of one or more members of my
family. .................... - True 1 .9 5
252. F No one cares much what happens
to you. .................... +True 2.04
268. PdMa Something exciting will almost
always pull me out of it when I
am feeling low. .............. +True 1.98
272. FDK At times I am all full of energy. . . -False 3.06
303. Sc I am so touchy on some subjects
that I can't talk about them. ..... -True 2.30
311. Sc During one period when I was a
youngster I engaged in petty
thievery. ................... +False 3.03
317. Pa I am more sensitive than most
other people. ................ -False 1.99
329. Pt I almost never dream. ......... +True 2.04
362. Pt I am more sensitive than most
-False 2.21

other people .................
I tend to be interested in several

372.
different hobbies rather than to
stick to one of them for a long
time . ...................... +True 1. 84
392. A windstorm terrifies me. ...... -True 2.32

Often, even though everything is

396.
going fine for me, I feel that I
don't care about anything. ....... +False 1.86

It bothers me to have someone

16.
watch me at work even though I
know I can do it well ........... -True 2.05
2.0 . I have had some very unusual
-False 2.82

religious experiences . ..........

156

y 437. It is all right to get around the
( law if you don't actuall break it. . . +False 1.87
f 454. Icould be happy living all alone
if in a cabin in the woods or
yr mountains . .................. - Fals e 2 . 36
/ 457. Ibelieve that a person should
/ never taste an alcoholic drink ..... +True 2.28
481. Ican remember "playing sickH
to get out of something. ........ +False 2.14
485. When a man is with a woman he
is usually thinking about things
related to her sex. ............ -True 1.90
492. I dread the thought of an
earthquake . ................. -False 1 .85
516. Some of my family have quick
tempers. ...... . ............ -True 2.08
547. ‘ I like parties and socials. ....... -True 2.40
565. ' I feel like jumping off when I am
on a high place. .............. -True 1.86
Validity

In Chapter IV it was shown that there were some adjustment
characteristics that significantly differentiated between successful
and nonsuccessful parolees. The reader will remember that there

were significant differences in masculinity of attitude and interests,

In feelings of inferiority, in nervous tenseness and manifestations,

In a sympathetic feeling, in satisfaction with work and recreation,
and in degree of psychopathic deviation. The item analysis described
above resulted in 132 items that also significantly differentiated be-
ween these two groups. However, none of the differences were so
:lear cut that they could be pointed out as including all of the suc-

ressful or nonsuccessful parolees. Because no one characteristic or

 

157

group of items could be used in such manner, the only logical means

of utilizing the information was to combine the items into a scale,

the composite score of which would indicate the degree of the dif-
ference in the thinking of the successful and nonsuccessful parolee

and the value of this difference in terms of parolability.
Some of the significant differences resulting from the item

analysis indicated a need for negative answers while others per-
It soon became apparent that there was

mitted a positive reply.
also a difference in the degree of significance. The difference on

some items was extremely significant while on others it barely ex-
There were so few items

ceeded the minimum level of significance.
with extremely significant differences that the writer felt they must

have more meaning, for differentiating between successful and non-

successful parolees, than those with barely significant differences.

It seemed to follow that weighted scores would serve as a means
of compensating for- the wide variances in the item validities. The
decision to use differential weighting in the scoring was based on

the idea that such system might result in making the final scores

more meaningful, while it would not change the actual outcome of
the scoring. Thus, it might add value to the score while it would
Inasmuch as the only disadvantage would

not invalidate the score.
arise from the more complicated scoring, the writer decided the

possibility of a more meaningful score would justify the additional

The most logical means of differentiating between
Table

work in scoring.
the weights to be assigned was by the level of significance.
XXXI indicates the various levels of significance and the correspond-
ing CR's which describe the limits of the assigned weights. As a

result, the items were scored *1, 1:2, or a 3:3.
The reader will remember that there were 384 complete

sets of test answer sheets obtained from the 471 parolees who were

158

TABLE XXXI

THE WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO ITEMS ACCORDING TO THE
CRITICAL RATIO OF DIFFERENCES IN
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES

 

 

 

 

Limits
Weights
Critical Ratio Level of Significance
1 ................ 1.82 to 2.33 0.930 to 0.980
2 ................ 2.34 to 2.81 0.981 to 0.995
3 ................ 2.82+ over 0.995

 

 

originally tested in this study. The validity of the composite score
of the items with significant differences for predicting parole out-
come could be tested by obtaining scores for the 384 parolees who
had complete sets of answer sheets and for whom the parole out-
come could be determined.

By this time, eighteen months of parole period had gone by
and the writer again checked the parole office files so that a com-
posite score for the items with significant differences could be ob-
tained for the successful and nonsuccessful parolees as of the end
of eighteen months instead of one year, thereby gaining advantage
of the longer waiting period which permitted a more reliable differ-
entiation between success and failure. It was discovered that 41.4
percent of the 384 parolees included in this part of the study had
violated their paroles within the first year and a half. This was

an increase of 4.9 percent for the additional six months.

159

It should be pointed out, incidentally, in connection with the
parole violation rate, that there are approximately 2,500 to 3,000
inmates paroled in Michigan every year. During 1953 the Michigan
Parole Board paroled 2,670 inmates of a total of 5,871 who had
parole interviews. There are many considerations, in addition to
the question of whether or not the prospective parolee is a good
risk, that enter into a parole decision. One of the major consider-
ations is in keeping with one theory of parole, that inasmuch as
95 percent of the inmates will eventually be released, it is better
to release the inmate under supervision and guidance than to turn
him loose with no controls. As a result, many cases, even where
there is reasonable question of successful adjustment, result in
parole, if the parole does not endanger the public safety, especially
in those cases where the placement might serve as an aid to the
parolee's adjustment. An elaboration of this point is not necessary
to the study at hand. However, the interested reader might con-
sult the works of Ohlin,ll Dressler,12 and Laune.l3

Table XXXII reports the scores of the items with significant
differences for the violators and for the nonviolators, the latter in-
cluding those individuals who had been in the "doubtful" category
during the first part of the study. The mean score for the entire
group was 43.50 with a standard deviation of 16.20. The mean
score for the nonviolators was 49.31 with a standard deviation of

15.05. The violators' mean score was 34.52 with a standard deviation

 

11
Ohlin, op. cit., pp. 19-40.

2
David Dressler, Probation and Parole (New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1951), pp. 16-66.

 

13
Laune, op. cit., pp. 1-9.

160
TABLE XXXII
THE WEIGHTED SCORES MADE BY 384 PAROLEES, COMPARING

SUCCESSFUL AND NONSUCCESSFUL, ON 132 ITEMS
WITH SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

 

 

 

 

Parolees
Scores '~—
Violators Nonviolators
—10 to -6 ...................... 2 0
-5 to +1 ...................... 1 0
0 to 4 ........................ 2 0
5 to 9 ........................ 5 1
10 to 14 ...................... 6 4
15 to 19 ...................... 12 3
20 to 24 ...................... 9 7
25 to 29 ...................... 16 7
30 to 34 ...................... 20 21
35 to 39 ...................... 23 17
40 to 44 ...................... 18 14
45 to 49 ...................... 16 28
50 to 54 ...................... 12 32
55 to 59 ...................... 7 29
60 to 64 ...................... 5 27
65 to 69 ...................... 3 21
70 to 74 ...................... l 9
75 to 79 ...................... 1 3

80 to 84 ...................... 0 2

 

 

161

of 16.20. The CR of the difference in the means of the violators
and the nonviolators was 9.01, indicating an extremely significant

difference.
The mean score for the nonviolators exceeded the scores of

82 percent of the violators. The writer applied various "cut-off"

scores and then compared the scores for the two groups to the
parole outcomes to determine what the results might have been if

the scale and the cut-off score had been applied to this group be-

fore parole. For the cut-off score of 35, the scale would have pre-
dicted the outcome of approximately 81 percent of those who were

successful but would have missed the outcome of 54 percent of the

violators. A cut-off score of 40 would have predicted 73 percent
of those who were going to stay out and 60 percent of the violators.

On the other hand, a cut-off score of 45 would have correctly iden-

tified 67 percent of those who became successful and 72 percent

of those who violated their paroles.
If only those inmates were paroled who obtained a score

higher than the various cut-off scores, the resulting parole viola-
tion rates would have proved very interesting. A cut-off score of

35 would have reduced the parole violation rate from 41.4 percent
Placing the cut-off score at 40 would have resulted

to 32 pe rcent .

in a parole violation rate of 27.6 percent, while a cut-off score of
It is at

45 would have reduced the violation rate to 22.9 percent.

once obvious that the higher the cut-off rate, the better, that is,

the lower, would be the parole violation rate. If the score were

set high enough, the success rate could be phenomenal, but there

would be a correSpondingly high number of individuals not paroled

who might also have been successful. In this study, for example,

sixty of the individuals who are now making a success of their

162

paroles would not have been paroled if a cut-off score of 40 had

been used.
As a measure of the degree of relationship between the scores

on the scale of items with significant differences and parole success

the biserial coefficient of correlation was computed by the following

formula:
P ‘1 , L9

Z

bis 0’

is the mean of the group in the first category and Mq

r
is

where M1)
the mean of the group in the second category; 0 is the standard de-

viation of the entire group; p is the proportion of the whole group
in category one; q is the proportion of the whole group in category
two; and z is the height of the ordinate in the normal curveidividing

The biserial coefficient of correlation for this scale

p from q.
computed for this population was .638, with a standarderror of .044.

A biserial coefficient of correlation of this magnitude and

the demonstrations with the use of various cut-off scores indicate

that the composite score of the significant items does differentiate

satisfactorily between successful and nonsuccessful parolees, to the

extent that the results have predictive value.

Reliability

A test- retest method of determining reliability was not pos-
sible, and a split-half, or odd-even, technique did not seem advis-

The split-half method has been criticized because the result-

able.
ing estimate of reliability varies depending upon the way the scale

is split into halves or upon the accidental position of particular items

in the original scale. Each of the various ways that a scale is Split
gives its own estimate of reliability and there are fairly large

163

fluctuations in the values obtained. Because there are so many ways
of splitting a scale, the split-half coefficient is not a unique value.
In view of the importance that the halves be as much equivalent as
possible and what seemed like a strong possibility that they would
not be, the writer decided some other method of estimating relia-
bility would be more exacting.

Ciarrett10 discusses a method of estimating reliability devel-
oped by Froelich,ll which’he states would result in a minimum esti-

mate of reliability as compared to the other methods. The formula
is:

2
not - M(n-M)

 

r =
11 Z
0't (n-l)

where n is the number of items; M is the mean test score for the

total group; and o: is the standard deviation of the test scores for

the total group. The application of this formula to the present data
resulted in a reliability coefficient of .895.

c .
The Kuder and Richardson formulas for the estimation of

12
reliability were consulted. The data were best suited to the

 

9 Dorothy Adkins et a1., Construction and Analysis of
Achievement Tests (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office,

1947), pp. 148-160.

 

Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psycholgy and Education
(New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953), p. 336.

11
G. J. Froelich, "A Simple Index of Test Reliability,"

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1941, 32:381-385.

12
G. F. Kuder and M. W. Richardson, "The Theory of the

Estimation of Test Reliability," Psychometrika, 2:251-260, Septem-
ber. 1937.

37

'19 .n“.".:*‘hlh: ...-aw : - w“:

164

Case IV formula, which resulted in a reliability coefficient of .872.

 

This formula is

.— 6:1.00-5.

 

z - ..
at - Npq Mt
N

I
"O l

where N is the number of items; Mt is the mean test score for the

total group; and at is the standard deviation of the test scores for
the total group. Kuder and Richardson pointed out that this formula

would never overestimate reliability.

-."'."'a5.. ri-r'n‘b :- 4“".47'. '5

Although not in the .90 range,

lRV-‘nfiv v

the fact that these estimations are minimal values indicates good

reliability.

Summary

An individual item anlysis of the items included in the five
inventories used in this study, using the method of obtaining a criti-
cal ratio derived from the difference in the percentage of reSponses
of one hundred of the "best" of the successful parolees, selected

at random, and one hundred of the violators, resulted in finding 132

items with significant differences. Rescoring the complete sets of

answer sheets of the sample, using weighted scores, resulted in an

extremely significant difference between the mean scores of the

successful parolees and the violators. Demonstrations with various

cut-off scores indicated the possible use of these items for predict-

ing parole success or failure. The biserial coefficient of correla-

tion for total score on these items as related to parole outcome

indicated, further, that such use of the items would have some val-

idity. Two estimates of reliability indicated that the results would

be fairly consistent.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The procedure. A review of the literature pertaining to pa-

role prediction techniques and studies revealed that almost all of

the factors that have been investigated were preincarceration fac-

tors. It seemed to the writer that a prediction method should also

take into account any differences which might exist in the thinking
of the prospective parolees at the time of consideration for parole.
Consequently, it was the purpose of this study to test one means of

discovering whether or not there are differences in the thinking of

successful and nonsuccessful parolees, and if such differences were

discovered, whether or not the nature and extent of such differences

would have value as predictors of parole success or failure. The

hypotheses tested, therefore, were:

I. There are differences in the thinking of successful and

nonsuccessful parolees which can be measured objectively by avail-

able standardized inventories.

2. The nature and extent of such differences will have some

reliability and validity as predictors of parole success or failure.
To discover whether or not there are differences in the think-

ing of successful and nonsuccessful parolees, five inventories were

administered to a group of inmates going on parole. These inven-

tories were the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN, the

Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR, the Johnson Temperament

166

Analysis, the California Mental Health Analysis, and the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory. A total of 471 inmates from

three Michigan penal institutions were tested in this manner.

The parolees were identified as successful or as violators

after all had been on parole at least one year. A parolee was de—

clared successful if he had been discharged from supervision or if

he was still under active supervision. The violators were identified

as those who had been returned to prison for technical violations,

those who had been sentenced as the result of conviction for new of-

fenses, and those who had been declared fugitives by reason of ab-

The in-state successful parolees were rated by their

scondence.
excellent parole ad-

parole officers on a four-place rating scale:

justment; high average parole adjustment, low average parole adjust-

ment, and borderline parole adjustment. The parole reports of out-

_ of-state parolees were studied by the investigator so a similar
rating could be made on the basis of those reports. The out-of-

state parolees were adjudged as "acceptable," meaning they were
to be classified with the high average and excellent, or in question-

able cases as ”unacceptable," based on the nature of their monthly

reports and the investigator's knowledge of the parole system of the

state in which they were serving their paroles. Three parole cate-

the "best" of the successful parolees; a "doubtful"

gories resulted:
Those parol-

group from the successful parolees; and the violators.

ees who had been discharged with improvement, those that had been
rated as excellent in their adjustment, those that had been rated as
high average in their adjustment, and those out‘of-state parolees

who had been rated as acceptable were included in the "best"

group. All of the other successful parolees who were not included
in the "best" category were placed in the "doubtful" category.

167

The following information was obtained from the parole files

for each individual included in the sample:

1.
Z.

9.

Institution from which paroled.
Race.

Time served prior to parole.
Offense for which sentenced.
Age at time of parole.
Intelligence quotient.

Previous c riminal hi sto ry.

Date of parole .

Parole officer or place of parole.

A five-place table was prepared for the various offenses for

which individuals were serving, showing the total number who had

been convicted for each offense, the number of violators, the num-

ber of nonviolators, the number of ”best," and the number of

"doubtful" (see Table VII, Chapter III).

the critical ratio of the difference in proportions, were made as

follows:

Four comparisons , using

the success rate of those convicted of crimes against

property with the total success rate; the success rate of those con-

victed of crimes against persons with total success rate; the suc-

cess rate of those convicted of sex crimes with total success rate;

and the success rate of those convicted of crimes against property

with the success rate of those convicted of crimes against persons.

The violation rate for each of the participating institutions

was determined (Table IX, Chapter III).

The sample population was compared according to race (Table

X, Chapter III).

The critical ratio of the difference in proportions

between the percent of white parolees who violated parole and the

percent of Negro parolees who violated parole was computed.

168

A five-place comparison of the sample population by age was

made (see Table XI, Chapter III), and the mean and standard devia-

tion obtained for each of the parole categories. The significance of

the differences between the means, determined by obtaining the

critical ratio of the difference between two means, was used for
"best" with

‘T

four comparisons: the ”best" with the "doubtful," the

the violators; the violators with the "doubtful”; and the violators

with the nonviolators.
A five-place comparison of the sample population according
The

‘1‘.“ an sage!“

to intelligence (see Table XII, Chapter III) was also made.
means and standard deviations of each of the parole categories was
determined. The critical ratio of the two groups with the greatest

difference in means was computed. These groups were the “best"

as opposed to the ”doubtful."

'The sample population according to time served was also

compared in a five-place table (Table XIII, Chapter III). The means,

standard deviations, and medians for each of the parole categories

were computed.
The sample population was compared on the basis of their

Each individual was placed in a classification

previous rec ords .
A five-

that indicated the extent of his previous criminal history.
category comparison was made for each type of offender (Table XIV,

Chapter III). In addition, three comparisons of the success rate of

various groups were made by use of the critical ratio of the differ-

ence in proportions: the comparison of the success rate of those

with no previous arrests to the average success rate; the success
rate of first offenders, excluding those with no previous criminal
history, with the average success rate; and the success rate of first

offenders with the success rate of those who had three previous

sentences or more .

 

 

 

 

169

The mean score for the total sample population was deter-
mined for each of the factors included in the five inventories. The
mean score of the sample population was compared with the mean
score of the normative population, on each factor, in terms of which
of the groups had the most desirable score. However, statistical

tests of the differences were not possible.

 

The significance of the difference between the means of the .
threeparole categories, the "best," the "doubtful," and the violat-
ors, was determined by computing the critical ratios of the differ-
ences between the means on each of the factors of the five inventor-
ies. The following comparisons were made: the ”best" with the L;

violators; the “best" with the "doubtful"; and the "doubtful" with
the violators. There were a total of forty-nine factors for which
the three sets of comparisons were made.
'There were included in the five inventories used in this study
a total of 1,309 items. The validity of the individual items was de-
termined by computing the critical ratio of the difference of the per-
centage of responses of one hundred of the successful parolees,
selected at random, compared with the percentage of the responses
)f one hundred of the violators, also selected at random.

All of the complete sets of answer sheets for the sample
.pulation were scored using those items which had been found to
fe rentiate significantly between the successful and nonsuccessful
olees . The items used in this process were weighted according
heir discriminating ratios. The sample population was divided

two groups so that a comparison could be made of the total
ghted scores from the items with significant differences. These
LpS were the violators, and the nonviolators, including those who
previously been in the "doubtful" category. However, it was

.ible to classify the subjects as violator of nonviolator on the

170

basis of parole status at the end of 18 months of parole service
instead of the one-year period previously used. Means and standard
deviations of the two groups were computed and the critical ratio

of the difference of the means determined. The biserial coefficient

of correlation was also determined, as were two estimates of re-

liability.

The findings. There were a total of 471 inmates in the sam-
ple population. Of this number 377 were from the State Prison of
Southern Michigan, 55 were from the Michigan Reformatory, and 39
were from the Cassidy Lake Technical School.

1. Of the inmates who had been on parole for at least one

year, it was found that 172 had violated parole. Of this number, 62
had been convicted of committing new offenses, 78 were returned
to prison as technical violators, and 32 were declared fugitives from
justice because of abscondence. This is a violation rate of 36.5
percent. A total of 163, or 34.6 percent, were rated as the "best"
of the successful parolees, while 136, or 28.9 percent, were rated
as "doubtful."

2. The sample population had been sentenced for a total of
forty-nine offenses. These offenses were divided into two basic
:ategories: offenses against property and offenses against persons.

total of 335, or 71.1 percent, of the sample population had been
invicted of offenses against property. The number convicted of
enses against persons was 136, or 28.9 percent of the total sam-
Of this number, 50, or 10.6 percent of the total sample, had
n convicted of sex offenses.
The success rate for the total sample was 63.5 percent. The
cess rate for those convicted of crimes against property was 60.4

cent, the success rate of those convicted for crimes against

 

171

persons was 72.8 percent and the success rate of those convicted

of sex offenses was 74.0 percent. The CR of the difference between

A

the success rate of the total sample and the success rate of those

 

convicted for crimes against property was .83 with a level of sig-

nificance of .590. The CR of the difference between the average

 

success rate and the success rate of those convicted of crimes ......
against persons was 2.06 with a level of significance of .960. The Q
CR of the difference between the success rate of those convicted 2
of crimes against property and of the success rate of those con- ;
victed of Crimes against persons was 2.56 with a level of signifi- J

cance of .989. The CR of the difference between the total success

rate and the success rate for those who had been convicted of sex
crimes was 1.56 with a level of significance of .880. These figures
indicated that persons convicted of crimes against property violated

at approximately a normal rate of violation. Individuals convicted

of offenses against persons were significantly more successful than

individuals convicted of offenses against property. It would then

follow, and does follow, that individuals convicted of offenses against

persons were likewise significantly more successful than the average

parolees. The success rate of sex offenders was not significantly
greater than the average, but the difference is approaching signifi-

cance.
3. The rate of violation for the State Prison of Southern

Michigan was 38.0 percent, while the rate of violation for the Mich-

igan Reformatory was 32.8 percent, and that for the Cassidy Lake

Technical School was 28.2 percent. It is noted that the violation

rates are in proportion to the total populations of the institutions,
a fact which may suggest that the amount of individual attention re-

ceived by the inmates at the respective institutions is reflected in

the parole violation rate of these institutions.

172

 

4. There were a total of 288, or 61.2 percent, white parol-
ees in the sample population, while 176, or 37.4 percent, were Negro.
Six-tenths of one percent were Indian and 0.8 percent were Mexican.

The difference between the percentage of white parolees who were

violators, 33.3 percent, and the percentage of Negro parolees who

were violators, 40.9 percent, was 7.6 percent. The CR of this dif- I"

ference was 1.60 with a level of significance of .89. This differ- E

ence is not significant although it is approaching significance. 5
5. The range in age at the time of parole was from 16 years 5

to 71 years old. Table XXXIII shows the means and standard devia- ;!

tions of five parole categories. There were four comparisons made.

In each of these the CR was in favor of the first-mentioned group.
The CR of the difference in the means was computed for the dif-

ference between the "best" and the "doubtful" categories, and it

was 3.63 with a level of significance of .9996. The CR for the dif-

ference between the means of the "best" and the violators was

3.23 with a level of significance of .9986. For the difference be-

tween the means of the nonviolators and the violators the CR was
1.95 with a significance level of .949, while that for the violators
and the "doubtful" category was .56 with a level of significance of

.424. These findings indicate that the older parolee tends to be the

more successful.
6. The range in intelligence quotients for the sample popula-

tion was from a low 42 to a high 134. The mean 10's and standard

deviations for the five parole categories are shown in Table XXXIV.

The greatest difference between any two means was between the

"best" as compared with the "doubtful." The CR

means of the

of this difference was 1.22, with a level of significance of .78. This

is not a significant difference and would indicate that the IQ, as

T AB LE XXXIII

173

THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FIVE PAROLE
CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO AGE AT TIME OF PAROLE

 

 

Parole Category Mean 3:521:22:
Total sample ...................... 30.47 9.60
Violators ......................... 29.38 8.55
Nonviolators ....................... 31.10 10.10
Best .......................... 32.98 11.45
Doubtful ........................ 28.84 8.40

 

 

TABLE xxx1 v,

THE MEAN INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS OF FIVE PAROLE CATEGORIES

 

!4_

 

Parole Category Mean 3:311:22:
Total sample ...................... 91.82 15.60
Violators . . ....................... 92.115 16.50
Nonviolators ....................... 91.65 15.10
Best . . . . ...................... 92.61 14.60

Doubtful . . ...................... 90.495 15.05

 

 

I74

measured and reported in this study, does not differentiate between

the successful and nonsuccessful parolee.

7. The amount of time served was measured by the total

consecutive months that the individual had served since last enter-

ing the institution. The range in time served was from 4% months

to 20 years. The parolee who had served 20 years was the only

inmate who had served beyond ten years and this extreme case

resulted in a considerable variation in the means computed. For

that reason the medians were also computed. The mean, standard

deviation, and median, in that order, for each of the parole categories

are shown in Table XXXV. CR's were not computed for the mean

differences because the writer felt that the extreme case would tend

to invalidate the CR's. A comparison of the medians, which do not

give such great weight to the extreme case, indicates that the dif-

ferences were very slight.
8. The previous criminal record was divided into twenty-

seven classifications, ranging from those with no previous history

of any kind to those with five previous prison sentences. The indi-

vidual was placed in a classification that indicated the extent of his

previous criminal history. The most significant finding was that

80.2 percent of those who had no previous criminal history of any

kind were making a success of their paroles. The difference be-

tween this success rate and the average success rate, which was

63.5 percent. was 16.7 percent. The CR of this difference was 3.64

with a level of_significance of .9996, an extremely significant dif-

ference.
The success rate for those that are normally regarded as

first offenders, which includes those with no previous record, was

68.3 percent. Without the "no previous record" group the success

rate for the so-called “first offenders" drops to 61.6 percent.

175
TABLE XXXV

THE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND MEDIANS OF FIVE
PAROLE CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO TIME SERVED

 

 

 

Parole Catego rie 3 Means If::il:t:::s Medians
Total sample ............. 24.2 20 .70 17.79
Violators ................ 22.4 16.62 17.83
Nonviolators .............. 26.8 22.74 17.78
Best ................. 28.3 27.06 17.96
Doubtful ............... 21.5 14.76 17.56

 

 

Comparing the average success rate to the success rate for "first
offenders," excluding those with no previous history, results in a
difference of 1.9 percent with a CR of .39 and a level of signifi-
cance of .303. This difference is not significant and implies that
the so-called ”first offender" group, when the individuals with no
previous history are not included, succeed on parole at a rate com-
parable to that of the average parolee.

There were sixteen individuals who had served three previous '
sentences or more at the time of their present incarceration. Sixty-
two and five-tenths percent of these individuals were making a suc-
cess of their paroles. The CR of the difference between the success
rate of the first offenders, which was 68.3 percent, and the success
rate of those individuals with three previous sentences or more is

.49 with a level of significance of .376. The difference in the

I76

success rate of the "first offenders," excluding those with no pre-
vious record, and the offenders with three previous sentences or

more, is 0.9 percent. The CR of this difference is .07, with a

level of significance of .056. However, there were only sixteen

cases in the group with three previous sentences or more, which
means that conclusions based on these figures are questionable.
9. There were a total of forty-nine factors included in the

five inventories administered. The sample means and the norma-

tive means were compared in terms of which score was the most
desirable. However, no test of significance was used in this com-

parison. It was discovered that the score of the normative popula-
tions was the most desirable in thirty-six of the forty-nine factors.
In other words, the sample population score was less desirable than

the normative p0pulation score on a little less than 75 percent of

the factors.
10. .Both the "best" and the "doubtful" groups of the suc-

cessful parolees were significantly more masculine in their attitudes
and interests than the violators, according to the way this factor is
scored by the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN.

11. In the factor described by Guilford-Martin as indicating
a lack of inferiority feelings or, conversely, the feeling of self-
confidence, the "best" group was significantly more free from
inferiority feelings than the violators.

12. The Guilford-Martin factor N is reported as indicating

a lack of nervous tenseness or irritability. In this regard, the

”best" group was significantly less irritable or bothered by ner-

vous tenseness than were the violators.

13. There were no significant differences for the Guilford-

Martin factor of General Pressure for Overt Activity or for the

Guilford-Martin factor of Ascendancy in Social Situations.

I77

14. There were no significant differences for any of the

Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR. Apparently, such factors as

Social Introversion-Extraversion, Thinking Introversion-Extraversion,
Depression, Cycloid disposition, and Rhathymia, as measured by this

inventory, do not differentiate between the thinking of successful and

nonsuccessful parolee s.

15. Both the "best" and the "doubtful" groups were signif-

icantly more Sympathetic than the violators, according to the Johnson

Temperament Analysis.
16. The violator was significantly more nervous than the
“best," according to the way this factor is measured by the Johnson

Temperament Analysis. This is in agreement with the finding on the

Guilford-Martin inventory for this factor.

17. The differences between the successful and the nonsuc-

cessful parolees on the remaining traits measured by the Johnson

Temperament Analysis did not prove to be significant. Therefore,

such traits as Depressive, Active, Cordial, Subjective, Aggressive,
Critical, and Self-Mastery, as measured by this inventory, did not

differentiate between those who succeeded on parole and those who

failed.
18. Significant differences were found for one of the factors

of the California Mental Health Analysis. The "best" of the parolees

was significantly more satisfied in work and recreation than either

the ”doubtful" or the violator groups.
19. None of the differences for the other traits of the Cal-

ifornia Mental Health Analysis was significant. This means that

such traits as Behavioral Immaturity, Emotional Immaturity, Insta-
bility, Feelings of Inadequacy, Physical Defects, Outlook and Goals,

Close Personal Relationships, Interpersonal Skills, and Social

178

Participation, as measured by this inventory, did not differentiate

between successful and nonsuccessful parolees.

20. The average score for the violators on the Psychopathic

Deviate scale, as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory, was significantly higher than the score for either the

"best" or the ”doubtful."
There were no other significant differences on the traits

21.
Such

measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
subtests as the Lie score, the Validity score, and the Correction
score, the Hypochandriasis scale, the Depression scale, the Hysteria
scale, the Interest scales, the Paranoia scale, the Psychasthenia
scale, the Schizophrenia scale, and the Hypomania scale, as repre-
sented in this inventory, did not differentiate between successful and

unsuccessful parolees.
The differentiating characteristics of the three parole

22.
groups, according to the traits measured by these inventories, indi-
cate that the "best" group are more masculine in attitudes and in-
terests than the violators; that they are more confident than the
violators; that they are less nervous than the violators; that they
are more sympathetic than the violators; that they are more satis-
fied with work and recreation than either the violators or the
"doubtful" group; and that they indicate less psychopathic deviation .
than the violators.

The distinguishing characteristics of the "doubtful" group

are that they are more like the "best" in that they are more mas-

culine in attitudes and interests; and also in that they are more

Like the "best" they also indicate

sympathetic than the violators.
less psychopathic deviation than the violators. However, on one

trait they are more like the violators in that they are also signifi-

cantly less satisfied with work and recreation than are the "best."

 

 

 

1“.“5. LN Inn-In. "am 1"
u r
L L .

179

The violator is distinguished by less masculine attitudes than
either the ”best” or the ”doubtful" groups; by more feelings of
inferiority than the "best" group; by more nervousness than the
"best"; by not appearing as sympathetic as either the "best" or
the "doubtful" groups; by not being as satisfied with work and rec-
reation as the "best"; and by indicating more psychopathic devia-

tion than all of the successful parolees, both the "best" and the

"doubtful" groups.
23. As a result of the item analysis, it was found that 102

items significantly differentiated between the successful and non-
successful parolees at the .95 (5 percent) level of significance, or

better. There were 132. items that significantly differentiated be-

tween successful and nonsuccessful parolees at the .93 (7 percent)

level of significance, or better. The examiner adopted the latter

level of significance as the criterion for this study.

24. The successful and nonsuccessful parolees had been

identified from the parole office records after each individual in

the sample population had served at least one year of parole. The

violation rate at the end of one year was found to be 36.5 percent.
The parole office files were again examined at the end of eighteen

months so that a new identification of successful and nonsuccessful

parolees could be made. At this time it was found that the parole

violation rate had increased 4.9 percent in the additional six months,

making the new violation rate 41.4 percent.

25. It was found that the number of reSponses for each of

the alternate responses of an item were not always consistent for

Consequently, the significant difference, in some cases,

each item.
This meant

was for one or the other of the responses, but not both.
that for scoring purposes, the specific reSponse had to be the one

scored and the method of scoring depended on whether the difference

   

180

was more related to parole failure or parole success. As a result,

those reaponses where the significant difference was related to suc-
cess were designated in the scoring key as positive (+) items and

those that were more related to parole failure as negative (-) items

The items on‘ which there were found significant differences
between the responses of successful and nonsuccessful parolees were
assigned weights according to the size of the CR of the differences.

Each item, as a result of these two scoring methods, was scored a

:L-l, 1:2, or 1:3.

26 There were 384 complete sets of answer sheets. These

complete sets of answer sheets were scored for the items with sig-

nificant differences. The mean score for the entire group was 43.50
with a standard deviation of 16.20. The mean score of the violators,

as identified at the end of_eighteen months of parole period, was
The mean score for the

34.52 with a standard deviation of 16.20.
The CR

nonviolators was 49.31 with a standard deviation of 15.05.
of the difference in the means of the violators and the nonviolators

was 9.01, indicating an extremely significant difference.

27. The mean score for the nonviolators exceeded the scores

.of 82 percent of the violators.
off" scores and then compared the scores for the two groups to the

The investigator applied various "cut-

parole outcomes to determine what the results might have been if

the scale and the cut-off score had been applied to this group before

parole. For a cut-off score of 35, the scale would have predicted

the outcome of approximately 81 percent of those who were success-
ful but would have missed the outcome of 54 percent of the violators.

A cut-off score of 40 would have predicted 73 percent of those who

were going to stay out and 60 percent of the violators. On the other

hand, a cut-off score of 45 would have correctly identified 67 percent

181

of those who became successful and 72 percent of those who violated

their paroles.
If only those inmates were paroled who obtained a score higher

than the various cut-off scores, the resulting parole violation rates

would have proved very interesting. A cut-off score of 35 would

have reduced the parole violation rate from 41.4 percent to 32 per-
cent. Placing the cut-off score at 40 would have resulted in a pa-

role violation rate of 27.6 percent, while a cut-off score of 45 would
have reduced the violation rate to 22.9 percent.

28. The biserial coefficient of correlation between the total
scores for those ‘items that had significantly differentiated between
the successful and nonsuccessful parolees and parole outcome was
.638, with a standard error of .044, which indicates such use of
the items would have some validity.

29. The reliability coefficient, according to the Kuder and
Richardson Case IV formula, was .872, and the reliability coeffi-
cient, according to a formula developed by Froelich, was .895.
These estimates of reliability indicate that the results of this scale

or set of items would have a satisfactory reliability for this type of

instrument .

Conclusions

The first hypothesis of the study, that there are differences
in the thinking of successful and nonsuccessful parolees which can

be measured objectively by available standardized inventories has

been confirmed. Individuals respond to the items of a questionnaire-

type inventory by indicating how they think about themselves, how
they think other people regard them, how they feel about their role

in society, how they feel about their relationship with other people,

182

and the things they believe about the way other people think. The
fact that there were significant differences between the responses to
individual items by the successful parolees and the nonsuccessful
parolees establishes, within the limitations discussed below, that
there are objectively measurable differences between the thinking of
successful parolees and the nonsuccessful parolees.

The second hypothesis, that the nature and extent of such dif-
ferences will have some reliability and validity as predictors of
parole success or failure is also confirmed. The biserial coeffi-
cient of correlation measuring the relationship of the total weighted
scores on the item for which there were significant differences be-
tween the responses of successful and nonsuccessful parolees to
parole outcome was of sufficient magnitude so that predictions based
on these scores could be accepted with confidence. The two esti-
mations of reliability are minimal estimations and are high enough to
indicate that the results would be fairly consistent.

It should be pointed out, at this time, that these conclusions
are drawn from group findings and, as a result, are applicabl‘eito
group predictions only. The significant differences on which these
findings are based are differences between means and percentages,
and as such, cannot be applied, with certainty, to individual predic-
tions. It should be recognized that there is considerable overlapping
in the distribution of figures on which means and percentages are
based and as long as there is such overlapping any predictions based
on such figures can be utilized only as group predictions.

This study did not investigate the possibility of individual
prediction as it was the purpose to determine whether there are
differences in the thinking of parolees at the time of parole consid-
eration, and if there are, what the nature of those differences are

and if they would have predictive value. There are differences and

183

the differences are such as to suggest that a scale like the one used

here would have some value in the prediction of parole outcome. The

fact that the findings are based on group predictions does not invali-
date them as an additional kind of information that could be consid-
ered by a parole board in determining the parolability of an individ-

ual. It has been demonstrated, for example, that the use of various

cut-off scores would result in increasingly higher success rates.
The parole board would also know that the prospective parolee's
score was above or below the cut-off score and that a certain per-
centage above that score are successful on parole while a certain
percentage of those with scores lower than the cut-off score are

failures. Of course, this information would have to be related to

the total information available regarding the individual, but it is an
additional type of information that has not previously been available.

The value of such an instrument would depend, in part at

least, on how truthfully the prospective parolee answers the items.
Otherwise, his score might indicate how well he can fake his answers.

The major criticism of the use of a questionnaire-type instrument in

situations of this nature is that it is comparatively easy for the

testee to answer the items to his own advantage, especially in situ-

ations where so much depends on the outcome. The possibility of

such faking would depend on the subtlety of the questions, among

other things. The "good" responses on this scale were determined

from the results of the item analysis and did not result in any

consistent pattern of responses. Consequently, faking would probably

be difficult on this scale since the prospective parolee presumably

would not know what kinds of responses are ”good."

There are other factors that should be taken into consideration

in a discussion of the limitations of this study which might possibly

have some effect on the results. The first of these was an error in

184

technique. Unfortunately, the writer, in his eagerness to make use
of all the available test papers in the random sampling to select the

papers used in the item analysis, did not use complete sets of test

papers, i.e., sets with five answer sheets for each subject. Conse-

quently, almost all of the complete sets of test papers that were

later available for a cross validation had one or more papers which

had been used in the item analysis. It was pointed out that 870 of

the 1,920 answer sheets used in the cross validation had also been

used in the item analysis, or 45.3 percent of the total. This is not

true cross validation, which actually means trying out the results of

the item analysis on a completely independent set of papers. The

fact that almost half of the papers used in the validation of the dis-
criminatory value of the items were papers which had been used in

the selection of the items in the first place undoubtedly tends to give

a Spurious effect to the results. Therefore, a true cross validation

on a new set of subjects is imperative.
A. further limitation lies in the fact that at the time of the
analyses included in the study, some of the potential parole violators

were identified as successful and regarded as such in the study. The

reader will remember that the classifications of successful and non—

successful parolees were made after all the subjects had been on

parole at least one year. It was pointed out that previous parole

statistics for Michigan indicated that approximately 75 percent of
those who were going to violate parole would have done so at the end

of the first year. At the end of one year 36.5 percent of the original

group had violated parole.
show that eventually in the neighborhood of 45 percent will violate

Recent statistics of Michigan's parolees

parole. Since the analysis of the subtest scores and of the individual
items was based on classifications as successful or nonsuccessful at

the end of one year, the critical reader might question whether or not

185

the differences in the thinking of the two groups would still be sta-

tistically significant afterpthose parolees in the successful group who

were to become violators had been reclassified. There is a possi-

bility that the final classification would change the statistics involved
in the conclusions of this study and such possibility should be kept

in mind as a limitation of the study when the conclusions are con-
sidered.

Recommendations for Application

A scale could be devised which consisted of the items found

by this investigation to differentiate significantly between the thinking
The writer

of the potentially successful and nonsucessful parolees.
would recommend that such a scale be devised and put into use by

the Michigan Department of Corrections. For the present, the writer
recommends that an individual's score should not be regarded as a

negative indication of parolability except in the case of those with
extremely low scores. The purpose of obtaining the scores of sev-
eral thousand parolees, for example, all those paroled in a given

year, would be to obtain data for the preparation of an expectancy

table based on the relationship of the scores on the scale of these

An

several thousand inmates and their ultimate parole outcome.
expectancy table based on the experience of several thousand parol-
ees would make available to the parole board an indication of the

expected probability of success and nonsuccess for those who ob-
In other words, an individual's score could

tained a certain score.
interpreted in terms of the expected rate of success or fail-

then be
are for a given score-class as determined by the experiences of

the sample on which the table was based.

f 186

The score would indicate the readiness of the individual for
parole as indicated by the degree that his thinking is like that of
the successful parolee or like that of the nonsuccessful parolee, as
determined by the percentages of successful or nonsuccessful parol-
ees with like scores. It is recognized that this is but a limited
sampling of the individual's thinking and that it does not take into
account such things as the individual's motivation for success or
failure, the deterrent effect of the incarceration, the degree of
determination to make good, and the reaction that an individual will
have toward friends or relatives who will influence him in one direc-
tion or the other. Consequently, the parole board would have to de-
termine what effect these and other relevant factors might have on
the individual, in relation to this thinking at the time of parole. In
other words, this information regarding the type of thinking of the
individual as interpreted in terms of expected success or failure,
based on past experience with others of like scores, would be an
additional factor to be considered by the parole board with all other
information at their disposal.

An indication that an individual's thinking was like that of the
successful or the nonsuccessful parolees, eXpressed in terms of the
parole outcome of those with like scores, would be of value to a

parole board in helping to reach a decision as to whether or not an
individual would be a good parole risk. One of the major uses of
the proposed scale would be as an aid to the parole board in a de-
cision regarding parolability at the initial parole hearing on the
expiration of the minimum sentence. A finding that the individual's
score indicated a likelihood for failure, based on past experience,
might suggest a need for continued treatment.
A scale of this nature would also aid in the discovery of those

cases that might be considered for parole before the eXpiration of the

187

minimum sentence. The results of the scale might also be one of
the deciding factors in the determination of how soon a parole vio-
lator is ready to return to society. In other words, a scale that

would give a valid interpretation, in terms of eXpected parole out-
come based on past experience, of a prospective parolee's thinking
at any time he is being considered for release would be a valuable
aid to a parole board in reaching a decision regarding the parola-

bility of that individual.
Recommendations for Further Study

The previous discussion has already pointed out the fact that
the items found by this investigation to differentiate significantly be-
tween successful and nonsuccessful parolees should be validated by
comparing the scores of several thousand parolees with their ulti-
mate success or failure on parole. This should be done so that
there can be continuous refinement of the scale, so those items
which no longer continued to differentiate reliably between success-
ful and nonsuccessful parolees could be eliminated from it.

The fact that this study establishes that differences in the
thinking of successful and nonsuccessful parolees can be measured
objectively should lead to the development of more scales devised
specifically for this purpose. It is recognized that the present form
of the items discovered through this study is not the most advan-
tageous. However, changing the items in any way so that they would
be alike in form might seriously affect the validity of the scale.
Consequently, the writer suggests experimentation with other forms
of the items to determine whether or not a uniform molding of the

item would be equally effective.

188

It is quite possible that an analysis of the items found by this
study to distinguish between successful and nonsuccessful parolees
would reveal specific areas or traits that would even more sharply
forecast parole outcome. A. study of these items might possibly re-
veal some of the differences in the basic dynamics of the behavior
of the successful and nonsuccessful parolees.

Experiments of the nature of the present investigation should
be conducted with other scales composed of traits not included in this
study. There may be other areas of thinking that could be objectively
measured that would also differentiate between parole success and
failure. The most discriminating of any additional items discovered
might then be combined with the most discriminating of the present
items in a further refinement of this method of parole prediction.

During the process of the present investigation, there was
another area of which the writer became aware that needed further

investigation. It was found that the parole success rate of the first

offenders, excluding those with no previous criminal history, was
very much like the success rate of individuals who had served at
least three previous sentences. However, there were only sixteen
cases in the latter group, and the results cannot be accepted with
confidence. It seems to the writer that this has important impli-
cations for the determination of parolability. As a rule, the first
offenders, which includes all those who have not previously served

a prison sentence, regardless of other criminal history, are regarded
as better parole risks than repeating offenders. However, the im-
plication of the finding of this study, that it is only the offender with
no previous history of any kind who is the better risk, while the
"first offender" who has a previous record but not to the extent

of a previous prison sentence, has a violation rate equal to that of

repeating offenders, certainly has strong implications for parole

189

decisions. A comparison of the success rates of several hundred

individuals in these three categories might be enlightening.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adkins, Dorothy, et al. Construction and Analysis of Achievement
Tests. Washington: United States Government Printing

Office, 1947, 292 pp.

 

 

Allen, Robert M. "A Review of Parole Prediction Literature,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 32:548-554, Jan-
uary, 1942.

Allen, Robert M. "Problems of Parole," Journal of Criminal Law

 

and Criminoloiy, 38:7-13, March, 1947.

 

Barnes, Harry E., and Negley K. Teeters. New Horizons in Crim—
inology. New York: Prentice Hall, 1943, 1061 pp.

Bates, Sanford. Prisons and Bgyond. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1936, 327 pp.

 

Borden, Howard G. ”Factors for Predicting Parole Success," Jour- -
nal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 19:328-336, November,
1928.

Branham, Vernon C., and Samuel B. Kutash, editors. Encyclopedia
of Criminolm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949,

521 pp.

 

.Burgess, Ernest W. "Factors Determining Success or Failure on
Parole," Part IV, in the workings of the Indeterminate Sen-
tence Law and the Parole System in Illinois by Andrew A.
Bruce and others, Journal of Criminal Law and Crim_ino_lpg_y,
19:214-286, March, 1928.

Burgess, Ernest W. "Is Prediction Feasible in Social Work,"
Social Forces, 7:533-545, June, 1929.

 

Burgess, W. C. "Here's A Challenge!" Rotarian, 71:2-3, July, 1947.

191

Euros, Oscar Krisen, editor. The Third Mental Measurement Year-
book. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1949, pp.
23-114.

Capwell, Dora F. ”Personality Patterns of Adolescent Girls: De-
linquents and Nondelinquents," in Analyzing: and Predicting
Juvenile Delinquengr with the MMPI, by Starke R. Hathaway
and Elio D. Monachesi. Minneapolis: University of Minne-

sota Press, 1953, pp. 29-36.

Dressler, David. Probation and Parole. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1951, 337 pp.

Dressler, David. Parole Chief. New York: The Viking Press, 1951,
310 pp.

 

Edgerton, Harold A., and Donald G. Patterson. "Table of Standard
Errors and Probable Errors of Percentages for Numbers of
Cases," reprinted from The Journal of Applied Psychology,
102378-391, September, 1926.

Forlano, G., and R. Pintner. "Selection of Upper and Lower Groups
for Item Validation," Journal of Educational chhology, 32:
344-349, October, 1941.

Froelich, G. J. "A Simple Index of Test Reliability," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 32:381—385, May, 1941.

Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New
York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1953, 454 pp.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Five Hundred Criminal
Careers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930, 365 pp.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Five Hundred Delinquent
Women. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934, 537 pp.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. One Thousand Juvenile
Delinquents. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934,

341 pp.

 

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Later Criminal Careers.
New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1937, 403 pp.

192

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Juvenile Delinquents Grown
Up. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1940, 330 pp.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Criminal Careers in Retro-
spect. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1943, 218 pp.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. After-conduct of Discharge_d
Offenders. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945, 114 pp.

 

Graham, Mary Ruth. These Came Back. University, Alabama:
University of Alabama, 1946, 134 pp.

Guilford, J. P. An Inventory of Factors STDCR. Beverly Hills:
Sheridan Supply Company, 1940.

Guilford, J. P., and H. G. Martin. The Guilford-Martin Inventory
of Factors GAMIN. Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply Com-

pany, 1943.

 

vHakeem, Michael. "The Validity of the Burgess Method of Parole
Prediction," American Journal of Sociology, 53:374-386, March,

1948.

Hart, Hornell. "Predicting Parole Success," Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 14:405—414, November, 1923.

Hathaway, Starke R., and J. Charnley McKinley. The Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York: The Psycho-

logical Corporation, 194 3.

Hathaway, Starke R., and Elio D. Monachesi. Analyzing and Predict-
ing Juvenile Delincmency with the MMPI. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1953, 153 pp.

, Huff, Ray L. "Is Parole Prediction a Science," Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 37:384-389, January, 1947.

Johnson, Roswell H. Johnson Temperament Analysis. Los Angeles:
California Test Bureau, 1944.

T. L. ”The Selection of Upper and Lower Groups for the
Validation of Test Items," Journal of Educational Psychology,
30:17-24, January, 1939.

Kelley.

193

Kelso, Robert W. "How to Predict Behavior on Parole," Survey, 61:
373-374, December, 1928.

Kuder, G. F., and M. W. Richardson. "Theory of the Estimation of
Test Reliability," Pchhometrika, 2:251-260, September, 1937.

Lanne, William F. "Parole Prediction as Science," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 26:377-400, September, 1935.

La Roe, Wilber. Parole with Honor. Princeton: Princeton Univer—
sity Press, 1939, 295 pp.

Laune, Ferris F. Predicting Criminality. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1936, 163 pp.

 

Laune, Ferris F. "The Scientific Status of Parole Prediction,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 27:214-218. July,
1936.

Lindquist, E. F. Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940, 266 pp.

Monachesi, Elio D. ”An Evaluation of Recent Major Efforts at Pre-
diction," American Sociological Review, 6:478-486, July, 1941.

Monachesi, Elio D. "American Studies in the Prediction of Recidi-
vism," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 41:268-289,

Septembe r , 1950.

Ohlin, Lloyd E. Selection for Parole. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1951, 142 pp.

Pigeon, Helen D. Probation and Parole in Theory and Practice.
New York: National Probation Association, 1942, 420 pp.

Ray, Joseph M. "Scientific Parole--A Proposal," Journal of Crim-
inal Law and Criminology, 37:384-389, January, 1947.

Reckless, Walter c. Criminal Behavior. New York: McGraw, Hill
Book Company, 1940, 532 pp.

Reckless, Walter C. "The Implications of Prediction in Sociology,"
American Sociological Review, 6:471-477, August, 1941.

194

Sanders, Barker S. ”Testing Parole Prediction," Proceeding of the
Sixty-fifth Annual Congress of the American Prison Association.
New York: American Prison Association, pp. 222-233, 1935.

Sandiford Peter, and J. A. Long. Validation of Test Items. Toronto:
University of Toronto, 1935, 126 pp.

~. Schnur, Alfred C. "Predicting Parole Outcome," Focus, 28:70-75,
May. 1949.

Sutherland, Edwin H. Principles of Criminology. Third edition.
New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1939, 634 pp.

Thorpe, Louis P., Willis W. Clark, and Ernest W. Tiegs. Mental
Health Analysis. Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1946.

 

Tibbitts, Clark. “Success or Failure on Parole Can be Predicted,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminolggy, 22:11-50, May, 1932.

United States Department of Justice. The Attorney General's Survey
of Release Procedures. Vol. 4, "Parole." Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1939, 664 pp.

 

United States Department of Justice. National Prisoner Statistics.
No. 11. Washington: Government Printing Office, July, 1954,

4 pp.

Vold, George B. Prediction Methods and Parole. Hanover, New
Hampshire: The Sociological Press, 1931, 135 pp.

Vold, George B. ”Do Parole Prediction Tables Work in Practice,"
Publications of the American Sociological Sociefl, 25:136-138,
May, 1931.

Vold, George B. "Prediction Methods Applied to Problems of Clas-
sification Within Institutions," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 26:202-209, July, 1935.

 

Warner, Sam B. ”Factors Determining Parole From the Massa-
chusetts Reformatory," Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-
nology, 14:172-207, August, 1923.

Witmer, Helen Leland. ”Some Factors in Success or Failure on Pa-
role," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 18:384-403,
November, 1927.

APPENDIXES

196

APPENDIX A.

THE CERTIFICATE OF PAROLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INCLUDING THE

CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CERTIFICATE OF PAROLE

-- Inmate No ............................. , now confined

 

Whereas --

in
is eligible for parole; Therefore, in consideration of the signed promises made by said inmate, We, the
Michigan Parole Board, hereby order that the said inmate be paroled after

to the confines of

 

 

 

..---__---_______--_.._----_-----

 

County, under the supervision of Parole Officer ........ N
we

Phone

Address

 

for a period of ending
providing the conditions of this parole are faithfully carried out.

............................ .---_-__--_--__-_..-_.---------------,
County or State

 

We further order that said inmate will proceed to m _-
y

where he will be employed by
Name Address

Address

 

Lnd will reside with
Name
SPECIAL CONDITIONS

 

Given at Lansing under the seal of the Michigan Department of Corrections this

 

of ................. _
MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD

 

st:

 

. 1
sub-:— -- v —

 

 

9190 93999138

among 30 unzouzts

 

 

30 aouasald q

'Jooggo along for Kq paiapdo are so 310mg 30 suopmuoo [moods qons 0; do am [1m '11
'KIIHQ'B Km 10 was an 04 £11m; in! 101 award out I ‘01

°s.moq quouosooI dean um I assurance puo ‘s;uauloaom ‘mnoqoosaqm Km JO scum [[813
paumoml .IBOQJO 910mg Km daaq max I 'Joomo 310mg Km mos; isanbas .Io .IsiiaI [no 0; aouo ;o [Idol [EM ‘

Q}

'JOOQJO along Km )0 uoIssruuad sq; ;noq;I.n pious; eoqod .10 1311;
undo o fiuIAoq suosaod .10 ‘uonunrsul Iouad o J0 sensual; ‘saolomd qua e;oogunmuloo .Io moposso ;ou [11ml '8

among 310mg Km :0 uoIssqusd oq'; moms ‘;qap
u; paAIOAuI omooaq .lo ‘auo J0 asoqomd eq; .10; [snow opIAOId .IO 2313;qu Joiom [no camp .10 fnq ;ou mAI ’

.H

CO

'Ioomo 910mg Km Io uofssrumad sq; ;uoq;pn aloud no .9qu Lmlm Ion In“ '

If:

2193an along Km ;0 nolssiumod sq; ;noq;pa paIOJod um I qoiqn 01 snow .10 [moon sq; saoaI ;ou [MI '

w

'sfian BuImJo;-;Iqoq .Io sonoorou Kuo osn .Iou ssaoxo o; ssfiodoaaq Bugsorxom; asn ;ou mil '

'Inmmn 9113 919159109 9‘1 1811111 1J0d3-I 91111 ms PWPWI
'papIAoad sumo; no mm 0; nodes Iranian o 8}[BIII mm 1 ‘Jaomo 910mg Km fq pannnsut so .10 ‘q;uouI '8 MO '

CV3

. ammonium in! 10199
-.Ia;u; isaq sq; 0; pm: human; mom won: I ;oq; puo;s.19pun 1 3190930 310mg £111 0; amount) qons 110d“
mm 1 ‘910Iod uo Buipoaoons Km mayo Kotu qoiqm qof .Io OOHOPISBJ £111 To saspto Knuomrp [no II 'uoISSIm

axed sgq OAIOOOJ puo .Iaowo alosod Km ;oo;uoo may mm 1 qog .Io oouaprsad aSuoqo o; hossmau 1! p119 III '5

'po;on.l;sug so mango 910mg Km ;oo;uoo KIoIoIpouImI mm I uogoupssp [m ;o resins uodfl '1

:;oq; soJBo pus ssIude lqmq op 1 mail
'EIHEIH (IEILNIHJ H'IOHVJ d0 SNOICLIGNOO (IIVS EIHJI DNIGNVLSHEIGND CINV GIN OJ: (William

DNIAVH so (1qu {)NIAVH (INV ‘uosl-Id 01 trauma! 3am Km III Imus-I Km etc-rad sun 10 “09??“
sq; :0 no 0; do can 0; amps; ;oq; ofipapnouq no; Bupmq puo ‘OIOJ‘Bd uodn asoalas [In so; uonompgsuofll

 

 

 

197

APPENDIX B

THE INVENTORIES USED IN THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION

1. The Mental Health Analysis.

2. The Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN.
3. An Inventory of Factors STDCR.

4. The Johnson Temperament Analysis.

5. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

MENTAL HEALTH ANALYSIS—Adult Series, Form A

W by Louis P. Thorpe and Willis W. Clark
Ernest W. Tiegs, Consultant

Do not write on this booklet mules: told to do so by the examiner.

irections:

If you are to use a special answer sheet, the method of answering questions is explained
I the answer sheet. If you are to mark youf answers on this booklet, the questions will be
rswered by making a cutie around the YES or NO. Do the following examples:

Have you ever been to a mov- On some of them you will make a circle around
lug picture theatcrl YES NO YES, and on others you will make a circle
Are Y?" 1333 than 311“” years around NO. When told to begin you are
0 38¢ YES NO to go right on from one page to another until
0n the following pages are more questions. you have finished them all. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me ......................................................................... O ccupation or Grade ..............................................
I0 ......................................... . ............. Age ................ Birthday .................................................. Sex: M—F
Month Day
Iminer ................................................................... Organization........... ..................................................
PERCENTILE
3:; (Chart percentile rank llerel
Score lie
1 5 lo 20 fl 4Q 50 00 70 N .0 I.
Lib......... IIIIPIIIIIIII
A. m. In. . . . . . m___ . . __ I....I..--I I I I ........ I I I I I I I
(Freedom from) .
o. Em. Ins. ..... (m)___ . . ...... I....I....I I I I I I I. I I I I
(Fractionation!)
C. Fl. Ina. ..... (n) __ I.......II I I I I ........ I I - I I I I
Mutton)
o. rt. Def. ..... (o) _ I....I....I..- I ...I I l I II ...I....I..-I
(Freedom from)
E. Nor. Man. . . . . (p)___ . . __ III I I I I I I I I........II
( mm, 1 5 10 20 N 40 50 CO 70 fl .0 '.
A“. - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I
A. CLPer. Rel. . . . . (a) _ I----I----I I- I I I I I I I I I
B. lntp. Sk. . . . . . (bl___ . . _ l.---..--l|---.- I.......I I I I I I I I I
:. Soc. Par. ..... (cl _ I....I....I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I....I....I
>. Sat. w. and n. . . . m__ . . _ I....I....I ........ I ........ I ........ I I I I ........ I ........ I....I....I
' 0t. and GI: ..... (o) __ I...I...I I I I I I I ..I I......I|
lScore...... —-——IIIIIIIIIIIII
l 5 10 20 ” 40 50 CO 70 N N I”

PERCENTILE

fluid“. 19“. by California 'reet Bureau. Wt under International t Union.
snowman-m tUnIon. mmgcuuomu
“mulewmmmunm. Printedtnu.8.A.

 

"I

I‘ _
A a ;'___'f '1. arm.

10.

 

14.

ll.

12.

13.

Do several people seem to think
that you are making a success

of your work? YES NO

Have you found that you can .

talk freely with one or more of
the people with whom you are

associated? YES NO

I
Do you often have to start eat-
ing a meal before the others be-
cause they make you wait so
long? YES NO

I
Have you found that you can

succeed better by getting tough
when someone tries to take ad-

vantage of you?
I
Is someone willing to help you

in choosing clothes and other

personal effects? YES NO

I
Are conditions affecting you

often so bad that you feel as
though life is hardly worth

living? NO

Have you found that your feel-
ings, or moods, about life fre-

quently change? YES NO

Are you often worried about
possible dangers that you can-

not control? . YES NO

Can you keep people from feel-
ing too embarrassed when they
make a mistake?

‘flS NO

Do you usually keep from show-
ing that you dislike to lose in
games or contests?

Do people often expect so much
of you that you are forced to
make a good many excuses?

Would you rather be with a
group of people. than find en-
tertainment for yourself? '

Do you prefer activities requir-
rng cooperation to those in
WhICl'l you work alone?

Have you found it difficult to
get acquainted with the people
you would like to have as
friends?

 

 

YES NO.

 

 

‘15.

16.

18..

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

the required amount of time YES

.Do you usually take part or

have definite interest in one
or more active sports? YES NO

I
Do you find that the type of
work you are doing rs suflici-
ently interesting?

Have you often felt less at-
tractive than others because of
the shape of your legs? YESONO
Are you concerned because you
are too tall to look right wrth

most of your friends? 55 N0

0

Are you sensitive because of
skin blemishes that detract
from your appearance?

Do you like to spend more than

on your work?

Do you usually refrain from do-
ing the things you believe to be
wrong?

DO you believe that you should
always be honest in your deal- YES NO
ings with people? ' .

Do you have a difficult time YES NC

sleeping? 9

DO you believe that people
have a right to do what they
like so long as they do not m-P
terfere with the rights of others.

Do you have the habit 0‘ bit. YES NO
ing your fingernalls? I I

Are you usually quick enouglI
to get a good seat at a show YES No
other gathering? I
it easy ‘0
le in. lines at
or Other 15 N0
I

“so

Have you found
get ahead of peop
games, theatres,
places? ‘

ore
Do you have one or m ? YES ”I
I

close friends of your Own sex.

{your
Do you feel that some 0 - d-
neighbors deserve your men will
ship?
5.....- c/ L/ V

 

NoI

 

 

g

 

:7 30.

_. 32.

33.

f. 34.

37.

ll.

12.

Do you have a friend who will
talk with you about your
problems?

Do you often feel as though
you are held back from doing
things that you would like to

- do? -

Do you usually make a point
of finding out what your friends
like to do?

Do your friends seem to think
that you have a good sense of
humor?

Do you often become so con-
cerned with your own prob-
lems that you fail to notice the
people around you?

Have you found it difficult to
settle on definite beliefs con-
cerning life?

Are you a member of a club or
other group where people do
Interesting things together?

Have you found that you get
along best when people are
willing to give you a loan from
time to time?

Do you usually take an active
part in things rather than think

or read about them? ‘

Are you a working member of
the Red Cross or some other
organization which assists
underprivileged people?

Does it seem to you that most
pe0ple like to compete with
others more than you do?

Do you feel unattractive be-
cause you have a protruding
or receding chm?

Do you feel that you have the
Opportunity of doing many of
the things that make life inter-

esting?

Do you usually feel good after
you have worked hard?

C. I!
r

 

 

44.
res NO
45.
res NO ‘ w
m 46.
res NO 47'
' b
res NO 48'
b
49.
res NO
to 50.
res NO 51-
In
res, NO 52-
res NO 53'
res NO 54-
. .
res N0 55-
res NO
.. 56.
res NO
° 57.
resto 58.
res NO
d
_3_

Are you satisfied with the type
of work you are doing because

it will lead to something better? YES NO

Have you been unhappy be-
cause you are not considered as

800d lOOking as you would like? YES NO

Have you noticed that you
hum a great deal of the time?

Do you believe that everyone
should have equal rights under
the law?

Do you believe that everyone
has the opportunity of making
an honest living?

Do you sometimes have dizzy
speHs?

Do you find it hard to sit still
for long?

Have you frequently been able.

to get even with people you dis-
like by ignoring them?

Have you found that it pays to
avoid people who try to pre—
vent you from doing what you
like?

Do you know someone with
whom you can talk over your
business or other problems?

Have you found that someone
else will usually get the things
you want if you don’t beat
them to it?

Have you found that it is
usually better to stay away
from home for awhile when
someone has been unfair to
you?

Do you make a practice of
showing people that you recog-
nize their abilities?

Have you found that it is well
to tell people when they show
good judgment?

Do you often find it necessary
to defend your beliefs in the
face of strong opposition?

b

L d a

NO

res
res NO

YES NO
YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO
YES NO
YES NO

YES NO

{1” v— v-..

 

 

 

 

59.

61.

62.

63.

65.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

Do you usually find that it is
much more pleasant to think
about necessary activities than
to engage in them?

Do you enjoy helping people
out of their difficulties?

Do you often feel that members
of your family do not think as
well of you as they should?

Do many of your associates
seem to think that their ideas
are better than yours?

Do people often claim that
they are more competent in
their work than you are?

Do you sometimes travel or go
camping with people of your
own age?

Does it seem that you are left
out of things you would like
very much to be in?

Is the kind of work you are do-
ing easy enough so that you
can do it well?

Do you prefer to keep your job
or present kind of work to seek-
ing employment that pays
more money?

Are you worried about things
that are said about you be-
cause you are too thin?

Are you concerned about com-
ments made because you are
overweight?

Are you troubled because peo—
ple seem to notice that your
teeth are uneven or otherwise
unattractive?

Do you believe that everyone
should be loyal to his friends
and associates?

YES NO 81.

res NO 82-

 

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

80.

83.

84.

85.

cu get a great deal of

relic for your eyes by squint-
ing? YES NO

Do you believe that people
who do what is right will event-
ually be rewarded?

Do you believe that people
have a right to decide things
for themselves so long as they
do not harm anyone else?

Do you constantly make plans
for carrying on a successful
career?

Are you usually consulted con-
cerning things members of your
family are planning to do?

Have you often found that by
stirring up a little trouble you
can get what you want with-
out delay?

Do you have a number of
friends among members of the
opposite sex?

Do you frequently have good
times with fellow members of
some group or organization?

Have you found that it is sur-
prisingly easy to hurt other
people’s feelings?

Do you make a practice of go-
ing out of your way to help
people?

Are you frequently dissatisfied
because your plans do not
work out satisfactorily?

Do you often feel depressed
without knowing the reason
for your feelings?

Have you often become so ab-
sorbed in personal thoughts
that you failed to notice what
was going on around you?

Do you make a practice of giv-
ing people credit for the things
they know?

YESNO

YESNO

YES NO

YES NO

YES N0
1

YESNO
e

YESNO

mm

 

 

 

.337.

\Kn‘,

Do you take part in the pro-
grams of a service club, work-
er’s organization, or other such

noun?

Do you have a group of good
friends in addition to the one
or two persons you know best?

. Are you often disturbed be-

cause people act as though they
cannot depend on you?

Do you go to dances or other
socials when you have the
chance?

Have you found that you can
do your best work when you
have the help of friends?

. Are you troubled because peo-

ple notice something wrong
With your mouth or lips?

Are you worried because there
rs something wrong with your
feet or legs that it is difficult
to conceal?

Do you usually look forward
wrth pleasure to the duties of
the next day?

Does it seem to you that you
are making satisfactory prog-

ress in your work responsibili-
tics?

Do You have as much time for

Play and recreation as you
should?

19° You stutter some of the
time?

Have you found that you are
tired much of the time?

Do you believ
e that eve one
should be kind to animals?

90 YOU often find
drumming”

or talking to

yourself
With your fingers
yourself?

100.

YES NO 101.

res no 102.

YES NO

NO

YES NO

YES NO‘

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO
4

YES NO

YES NO

9

YES NO

YES NO

e 113.

 

YES NO

P

_5_

103.

104.

105.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

Are you frequently bothered
by eyestrain? YES

Do accidents or injuries seem
to hurt you more than they do
most people? No
Have you found that you
usually get what you want

. most quickly by demanding it? YES NO

Do you have some'close friends

among your relatives? YES NO

Do you feel that most mem-
bers of your family think as
well of yOu as they should? Y‘
Do you have so many problems
that you are often justified in
stretching the truth a little in

solving them? YES NO

Do you enjoy letting people
know when they have done
something well? YES
Can you usually stop a quarrel
between two people without
hurting their feelings? YES 3 No
Does it usually take you con-

siderable time to get over dis-

appointments? YES NO

Have you often had the feeling
that you do not get what is

coming to you in life? YES NO

Do you find it very difficult to

relax and take things easier? YES N0
0

Do you usually prefer working
with a group rather than alone? YES NO
Q
Have you usually found it dif-
ficult to ‘get along with persons
of the opposite sex? YES NO
Have you found that you can
get out of unpleasant responsi-
bilities by appearing to be be-

low par physrcally? YES N0

0 h r: d n

 

114.

115.

116.

1.17.

118.

119.

120.

121.

. 122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

gum—_n

Do you call on your friends
when you have the time?

Do , your friends appear to
think that you are good at get-
ting things done in group ac-
tivities?

Are you troubled because peo-

ple notice that you have scars '
. that show? ~

Do you have the opportunity
of seeing your favorite kinds
of motion pictures?

Do you listen regularly to
some of your favorite radio
programs?

Are you troubled because your
hair rs either too thin, straight,
or curly to be attractive?

Have you been troubled be-
cause of things people say
about the color of your hair?

Do you believe that everyone
should receive enough free edu-
cation to fit him for demo-
cratic living?

Do you believe that people of
other colors, races, and beliefs
are entitled to their rights?

Are you often troubled by a
buzzing sound in your ears?

Are you sometimes troubled
with nightmares?

Do you believe that you
should obey the laws even
though you do not agree with
them? a

Do you usually prefer to do
things on the spur of the mo-
ment rather than after plan-
ning them?

Do the members of your fam-
ily seem to believe in your
honesty and truthfulness?

Do you often have good times
at social gatherings in your

home?

P

 

 

 

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

res no

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

9

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

 

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

MO.

141.,

_5_.

Have you found that it usually
pays to tell peOple frankly

about your likes and dislikes? YESI N0

Have you found that many
people are unreasonable in ex-
pecting you to keep your feel-
ings to yourself? .

Are you often concerned about
what the future may have in
store for you?

Do you often help people have

a good time at social affairs? YESDNO

Are you usually careful of

YES

YES

what you say, about your YES

friends?

Do you usually show an inter-

est in the things your acquaintf YES

ances are doing?

Have you often felt that you

have more than your share of Y

bad luck?

Do you engage in one or more
hobbies in which some of your
friends are interested?

Does it seem to you that most
of your associates are more at-
tractive physically than you
are?

Does it seem to you that most
people think about themselves
and tend. to forget others?

Do you find it difficult to se-

cure as much attention as most Y

people do?

Do you sometimes go to con-
certs, lectures, or entertain-
ments with a group of ac-
quaintances?

Do you like to spend part of
your time painting, drawmg,
or writing?

Are your duties often so inter-

esting that you like to work Y

hard?

0 h 1:

YES

YESNO

3N0;

YES

9

YES
4

d

d__——l-——-"

ESNO

m

N0

N0

 

es No-

my

NI

I

[see

I
I
I
J

l__ Ill u_____n

Are you concerned because of
difficulty in controlling muscles
of your hands or feet?

. YES NO

Do you feel discouraged be- "

cause poor eyesight keeps you
from doing your best work?

Do you feel your work is so
important that you do it well?

Do you occasionally feel that
your muscles are trembling?

Do you seem to catch cold
easily?

Are certain of your religious
beliefs so fundamental that
you would not care to change

them?

Do you consider good 'charac-

ter as important as knowledge
or skill?

Do you often feel a tension in
your chest?

If you were in need of financial
assistance, do you know of
someone who would help you?

Are many people so unpleasant
that you are justified in treat-
mg them with indifference?

Do you have any brothers, sis-
ters, or other close relatives

who are as friendly to you as
they should be?

Do you know any people who
can be trusted to keep your
secrets?

Have you found that you get
along best when you don’t

. concern yourself much about

other people’s feelings?

Are you careful not to talk
much about the things you can

do? '

'19

YES NO

YES NO
YES NO

YES NO

YES

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

res NO

res NO
I

YES NO
b

 

157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.

168.
169.

170.

_7_

Have you foundthat you often
seem both to love and hate
some one? ’

Have you found that it is
usually inadvisable to tell peo-
ple about their faults?

Are you often tempted to give
up trying to solve your many
problems?

Have you found ways of get-
ting out of many of your un-
pleasant duties?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Do you sometimes take part

in planning or in leading group
activities?

Do you like to take an active
part in civic or political mat-
ters?

Have you often felt that you
need more courage than most
people if you are to be success-

Do you enjoy carrying on con-

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

versations at group gatherings? YES NO

Have you noticed that much
good usually comes from your
failures?

Do you like to spend part of
your time workrng in a garden
or similar outdoor actrvrty?

Do you worry about what peo-
ple think because you must
wear eyeglasses?

Are you concerned because you
are too stoop-shouldered to

look well?

Do you often feel embarrassed
because you believe your skin
to be unsightly?

Do you get'a great deal of plea-
sure from raising animals or
spending time with pets?

0 I! I: (I

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES

NO

YES NO

 

 

171.

172.

173.

174.
175.
176.
177.

178.
179.
1110.
181.
182.
183.

184.
185.

186.

I - l

Do you believe in fulfilling
hi?" promises even if you dis-
' e very much to do so?

Do you believe that there are
some acts that are always right
and some that are always
wrong?

Do you frequently wake up
with a stiff neck?

Do you often have trouble
with sneezing spells?

Do you often have shooting
pains in your head?

Do members of your family
seem to like your friends?

Is there someone to whom you
can go if you are in trouble?

Do you often talk over per-
sonal matters with other peo-
ple?

Have you found that if you
want to be comfortable, you
must look out for yourself?

Have you found that if you let
your work go, someone else
will usually help you finish it?

Have you found that it is bet-
ter not to talk about peeple be-
hind their backs?

As a rule, do you prefer having
people do things for you to do-
tng them yourself?

Do your friends appear to
think that you are fair in your
dealings with them?

Is it easy for you to be friend-
with people even when they
isagree with you?

Do you make it a point to treat
your friends when you have
the opportunity of doing so?

Do you enjoy trading, buying,
or selling things? .

 

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YESNO

YESNO

YESNO

 

187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.

197.

198.

199.

200.

Does it seem to you that most
ple can work harder or

anger than you can? YES NO

Have you found it almost im-
possible to be as successful as
most of your acquaintances? YES NO

Have you found that it is
usually someone else’s fault
when you are blamed for things? Y3. "0

(
Do you usually like to be where
there is much activity?

Do you sometimes enjoy your-
self by going fishing, camping,

or biking? "3"”
Do you have good times col-

lecting stamps, coins, or other _
objects? ‘I‘o

Are you troubled because so
many people notice how bow-
legged or knock-knead you are? Y5.”

Do you often have an enjoy-
able time playing a musical in-
strument?

Are you worried because some-
thing is wrong with your
hands? "? '0

 

Do you believe in spending
part of your time or money 1n '
assisting worthy causes? 73"” I

I
Are your arms extremely tense NO I
much of the time? YES I

' I

rrsNO'

Do you frequently have sick
headaches?

Do you think that family life is
essential to the welfare of
society?

YES NO I
Do you feel that there is some I
great plan in the universe and
that you have a part in it?

THE GUILFORD-MARTIN

INVENTORY OF FACTORS G A M l N

(Abridged Edition)

Mr.
Mrs.

Name Miss Date
(Cross out two)

 

Nearest age (encircle): Raw Scores: G A M I
16 20 25 30 35 40' 60 56 60

“7." or “No."

 

C-Scores: -...--" ----

 

 

DIRECTIONS: Below you will find some questions which are to be answered by encircling either “Yes"
Read each question in turn, think what your opinion or your behavior has usually been, and

draw a circle around the answer that best describes your behavior or opinion. Encircle the “i" only when you
are unable to decide between the “Yes” and “No." BE SURE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. There is no right
answer to any of these questions except the answer that tells how you think or feel about it.

1.

9 9‘???"

”9°.“

10.

11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
26.
26.
27.

 

Do you believe that you know your own characteristics about as well as most peeple

know theirs? .................................. . . . . . . . . . . ............................ Yes
Does your personality stand out as being quite different from that of other peoplei. .. . Yes
When climbing stairs do you often take the steps two at a time? ...................... Yes

Do you often feel the need for a rest during the day?................ Yes
When you think you recognize someone you see in a public place, do you inquire of

him whether you have met him before? ....... . ..... . . . . .............. . . . ........ . . . Yes
Do you have one or more abilities in which you believe you are superior to most other

people?- . ..... ............. ..................... .......................... . ..... . Yes
Do you express such emotions as delight, sorrow, anger, and the like. readilyf. . . . . . . . Yes
Do you feel that people almost always treat you right? . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . .. . Yes

Do you become very annoyed when you find a window stuck when you want to open it? Yes
Do you find it difficult to get rid of a salesman to whom you do not care to listen or

give your time? ..... . ............. . ........... . .............. Yes
Have you ever kept a personal diary of your own accord?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Yes
When going somewhere in an automobile, does it bother you considerably to get caught

in slow-moving traffic? .................. Yes
Are you afraid of deep water? .................... . ....... . . . . ........................ Yes
Are you inclined to be quick in your actions? ..................................... . . Yes
Do you frequently feel thwarted because you cannot do as you want to? ......... .. . . . Yes
Do you usually hesitate to take a seat in the front of a lecture room or church if to do .
so makes you appear conspicuous? ................................................. . . Yes
Doyoucryrathereasily?......... .................... Yes
Do you believe you have been bossed too much for your own good‘!. . . . . ........ . ..... Yes
Are there ever times when you feel so jumpy you could throw things at people if you

did not control yourself? ............................ . . . . ....... . . . . . . . ........... . . . . Yes
Doyou always knowwhat to do next?. .................... Yes

At work or at play. do other people find it hard to keep up with the pace you sett. .. . . . Yes

Do you often wish you were stronger so you could “smash" some one who is stronger
than you? ........................................... ...... . ................. Yes

Do you (or would you) ever haggle over a price with a tradesmen or dealer?. . . . . . . . Yes
Do you often find that you can think of smart things to say only after it is too later. . Yes
Do you find it easy to start a conversation with a stranger? ..... . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . Yes
Do you often become irritated over little annoyances?............. Yes
If an acquaintance of yours has been spreading untrue and uncomplimentary stories

about you,.do you usually “have it out" with the person?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Yes

Copyright I943 by Sheridan Supply Co.. Beverly Hills. Cali].
(Not to be reproduced in rhole or in part billion! nn'iien permission of the copyright em.)

Had". ND "00'0"“

H".

H HHHH

N

0O,“

«swears-e

No
No
No
N0

No

No
No
No
No

No
No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No

No

or raccoon

@“Q0

10
11

12
13
14
16

16
17
18

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26

27

 

. .
.s _,__-

M

 

Page 2

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

38.

39.
40.
41.
42.

43.
44.
45.

46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
58.
54.
55.
56.

57.
58.
59.

60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

66.
67.

68.

69.
70.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.

Do you feel deeply sorry for a mistreated horse? ...................................... Yes
Do you always feel that you can accomplish the things you want to do? ........ . ...... Yes
Are you happiest when you get involved in some project that calls for rapid action‘f. .. Yes
Do you sometimes crave something intensely without knowing what it is you want?. .. Yes

Do you feel bored much of the time? .......... . ...................................... Yes
When a parent. teacher, or boss scolds you, do you ever feel like weeping? ........... Yes
Are you rather good at blufling when you find yourself in difficulty?. . .. ............... Yes
Are you inclined to be slow and deliberate in movement? ............................ Yes
Would you rate yourself as a tense individual?. . . . . ........ - ......................... Yes
When you are suddenly upset emotionally, does it take much time to recover your

composure? ....................................... . ............................... Yes
When a clerk in a store waits on others who should come after you, do you usually call

his attention to the fact? ........................................................... . Yes
Does it annoy you to hear someone make fun of your clothes? ........................ Yes
Have you often felt that you are a rather awkward person? ........................... Yes
Do you wake up feeling tired in the morning? ........................................ Yes
Do you usually eat more rapidly than the average person, even though there is plenty

oft tim e? ............................ . ............. . . . . . ................ . ............. Yes
Do you dislike to have people watching you while you are working? .......... . ........ Yes

In a group activity do you often find yourself compelled to play an unimportant part‘f. Yes
When troubled or upset because things go wrong. are you inclined to suffer from indi-

gestion, acid stomach, or other distress? .................. . .......................... Yes
Do you like love scenes in a movie or play? ............................................ Yes
Do you feel that you are lacking in self-control? ................... . ..... .. . . .......... Yes
Have you ever, on your own initiative, organized a club or group of any kind?. . . ..... Yes
Are you ever afraid that you cannot live up to the standards your parents set for you? Yes
Do you feel strongly against kissing a friend of your own sex and age? ..... . .......... Yes

Have you ever been afraid of contracting tuberculosis or some other serious disease?. . Yes
Does it sometimes seem to you that in life’s competitions you are usually left behind? Yes
Have you ever been hesitant about making application for a job in person? ...... . . . . Yes
Do you prefer the study of mathematics and science to that of literature and music?. . Yes
Do you get angry very easily?. ... Yes
Do you feel confident that you can cope with almost any situation that you will meet

in the future?. ...... . ........... . ........... . . .. ........ . ....... . ............ . ..... Yes
Does it bother you considerably to have your teacher or your boss call upon you

unexpectedly in a group? ............................................................ Yes
Can you go into a dark cellar or basement alone without even the slightest trembly

feeling? . .......................... ........ .......... Yes
When you are walking with others, do they often have difficulty in keeping up with

you? ...................................... , ........................................ Yes
Does it make you uncomfortable to be “different"?. . . . . ..................... . ....... Yes
Is your health generally better than that of most people? . . . ........................ . Yes
Do you often become tense or excited either at a movie or when listening to the radio? Yes
Would you rather work for a good boss than for yourself? . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes
Would you rather be a florist than a miner? ............... . . ............ . ......... . . Yes
Do you sometimes wish you were in another office (or school or factory) where your

companions were more congenial? .................. . ........ . ....................... Yes
Do you feel tired out most of the time? ................. ' ......... . .............. . ...... Yes
Do you (or would you) like to take on new and important responsibilities such as

organising a new business enterprise? .............. . ......... . ........ . .............. Yes
Are you very good at making money as compared with others of your own age and

sex? ........... .. ................................. ......... Yes
Are you afraid of snakes? . . . . . ........ . . ........... . ...... . ........ . ....... . ......... Yes
Are you particularly uneasy when waiting for a slow person to finish either saying or

doing what he started? ....... . ...... . .............. . ......... . . . ...... . . . . . ....... . . Yes
Are you oversensitive to criticism of yourself? ........ . .............. . .............. . Yes
Do you feel sorry for a fish that is caught on a hook?. . . . . . . ......................... Yes
Are you the kind of person who is “on the go” all the time he is awake?. . . . . . . . . .. . . . Yes
Are you easilystartled byunexpected stimuli? ..... Yes
Do you find it difilcult to say “No" to a salesman who tries to sell you something you

donotreailywant?............. ....... ...... Yes

"I

«ensue-ensue...“

'Q

“'00..“

HHH-idfl-QQHNH 'iNO-wfl

0'.

NH’*HOOH “O

'O-Q

'4

HHH‘QO‘

No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No

28
29
30
3]
32
33
34
35
36

37

38
39
40
41

42
43
44

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

56

57

58

59
60
61
62
63
64

65
66

67

68
69

70
71

0
73
74

75

 

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.

82.
83.

84.

85.

87.
88.
89.
90.

91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.

97.
98.
99.
100.

101.

102.
108.

104.

105.
106.
107.
108.

109.
110.
111.

112.
118.
114.

115.
116.
117.
118.

119.
120.
121.

122.
123.
124.
12 5.
126.

127.

Do you frequently feel self-conscious in the presence of important people? ............
Would you rather be an artist than a political organizer? ............................
Do you usually work faster than the average person of your sex and age? .............
Were you happier when you were younger than you are now? ........................ .
Do your interests tend to change quickly? ............................................

When you are attracted to a person of the opposite sex whom you have not met, do you
usually make an active attempt to get acquainted even though the circumstances may
make this quite diflcult? ............................................................

Does the sight of large bugs and spiders ever give you a “creepy" feeling? ............
Do you suffer keenly from feelings of inferiority? ........................ . ............
Can you relax easily when sitting or lying down9 ......................................
Do you find it difiicult to solicit funds even in a cause in which you are interested?. .. .

Do you become nervous and tense when competing in a contest, such as tennis, golf,
or debating? ........................................................................

Do younger people have an easier and more enjoyable life than you do?. . . .. . . . . . . . . .
When you become emotional do you sometimes come to the point of tears? ........ . . . .
Do you usually start to work on a new project with a great deal of enthusiasm? .......

Does it seem to you that you never do things in a way that wins the attention and
approval of others? . .. ................. . ............................................

Do you usually speak out in meeting to oppose someone who you feel sure is wrong?. .
Do you often find it difficult to sleep at night9 ............................. . ...........
Do you ever fear that you are getting lost9 ............................................
Are you inclined to keep quiet when out in a social group? ............................
Would you rather be a building contractor than a nurse? .............................

Do you sometimes want to move to a new town or community because you do not find
congenial people where you are? ................................................... . .

Do loud noises tend to upset you? ....................................................
Are you disgusted at the sound of foul language? ............. . ......................
Can you turn out a large amount of work in a short time? .............. . ............

When promotions in rank, salary, or position are being made, does it seem that you
are given less attention than others? ............................. . . ..................

Do you usually shrink from meeting a crisis or emergency9 ................... y ........

Do odors of perspiration disgust you? . . . . .......... .. ........................... . . . . .

Do you find it dificult to goon with your work if you do not receive enough encour-
“sealant? eeaeeeeoeeoeeeeeseeoeeeeeeeeeeeeesea eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eseeeeooeeeeee

While not otherwise occupied, are your hands almost always busy in such acts as
drumming on the table, twisting a chain or rubber band, etc. ? ....................... .

Do you often find yourself hurrying to get places even when there is plenty of time?”
Do you let others “run over you” more than you should for your own good? ..........
Would you rather be a private secretary than an explorer of new geographic territory?

Do you ever wish you could have been born at a different time or place or in a
different family than you were? ......................................................

Can you usually sit still without fidgeting? ..........................................
Would you rate yourself as a talkative individual? ...................................

Have there been many people with whom you have come in contact who did not care
to associate with you? ............................................................ . . .

Are you disgusted at the sight of ragged or soiled fingernails? . . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... . . .
Do you usually feel restless when listening to a lecture? ..............................

In being thrown by chance with a stranger, do you usually take the initiative in intro-
ducing yourself? ............ . ......... ......................

Do you ever wish that you were taller or shorter than you are? .................. . . . . .
Are you frequently in a state of inner excitement or turmoil? ......... . ............ . . .
Can you (or could you) walk past a graveyard alone at night without feeling uneasy?
If you hold an opinion that is radically different from that expressed by a lecturer, do

you usually tell him about it either during or after the lecture?. ...............
Are you frequently absent-minded? ............................................
Do you feel deeply sorry for a bird with a broken wing9 ............................
Do screeching sounds (like a fingernail scratching on the blackboard) send terrific
“chills” up and down your back9 ............................................... . . . . . .
Can you always think of a good excuse when the situation demands it? ............ . . . .
Are you usually confident of your abilities? ............................ . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
Would you rate yourself as an impulsive individual9 ..... . ....................... . . . . .

Do you feel compelled to change your bodily posture frequently while sitting?. . . .. . . .

11130 y:u feel that the average person has made a better adjustment to life than you
ave .......................................... ............ .

Do you have nervous habits such as chewing your pencil or biting your fingernails?”

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes ‘

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

0‘9"...“

OC'QNHN H

HHHN'§'~9 "OHN'O

“9000‘“

"90'.

“I" ‘0“ "9'4”".

"INN-IO

0".

Hflflflfl "

H

Page 3

No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No

No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No

No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No

No
No

76
77
78
79
80

81
82
88
84
85

86
87
88
89

90
91
92
98
94
95

96
97
98
99

100
101
102

103

104
105
106
107

108
109
110

111
112
118

114
115
116
117

118
119
120

121
122
128
124
125

126
127

.— 1-4.;

 

Page

128.
129.

130.
131.
132.
133.

184.
135.
136.

188.
139.
140.

141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.

147.
148.
149.
150.

151.
152.
153.
154.
155.

157.
158.
159.

160.
161.
162.
168.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.

175.

176.

177.
178.
179.

180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.

 

4

Do you ever take the initiative to enliven a dull party9 ................... . . . ......
When you were a child were you usually made the “goat" by your playmates (such as
being forced to be on the unpopular side while playing games)? ..... . ..... . . . . . . . . . .
Do you like to speak in public?. .. ....................... . ................. . .........
Do you feel physically inferior to your associates? . . . ........... . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . .
Would you rather be a dress designer than a forest ranger?. . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . .
Arenyou able to come back to a state of calm readily after an exciting situation is
pas ................................................. . ...... . .......

Do you like to bear responsibilities alone? ................................. . . . . . . . .. .
Do you (or would you) like to go hunting with a rifle for wild game?. ....... . ...... .

When present, with others, at the scene of an accident, do you usually take an active
partinhelpingoutifneeded?” ............. .........
:Vhentyou become angry. do you get over it rather quickly when the cause for anger
spas ................ ....... . ...................... ....... . ...... ..
Do you tend to prefer quiet rather than exciting amusements9 ................... . . . . . .
Do you often wish your appearance were different than it is? .................. . . . . . .
When you find that a piece of merchandise you have bought is defective, do you find it
easy to demand an exchange or refund? ....................
Can you stick to a tiresome task for a long time without being prodded or encouraged?
Does it make you jittery to handle a loaded gun? ................... .. . .
Are you frequently afraid that other people will not like you? ..... . ......... . . . . . . . . .
Have you ever been regarded as a daredevil9 ..................... . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . .
Do you consider yourself a nervous person? ..................
When in a restaurant you are served stale or inferior food, do you usually make a
vigorousprotestaboutit? ........................................
Does your mind often wander so badly that you lose track of what you are doing?. . . .
Does it annoy you to see a person biting his fingernails? . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are you easily discouraged when things become difiicult?. . ........... . . . . ....... . . . .
Does a difficult decision or emotional crisis ever leave you so exhausted that you cannot
go on with your regular activities? . . ..... . . . . .......................... . ........... . .
Are you inclined to rush from one activity to another without pausing for rest?.. . . . . .
Do you always stand up for your rights when they are endangered?.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Do your friends seem to have a better time than you do?. ....... ..
Does the sight of pus disgust you9 .............. . ..................... . . . . . . . . . .......

Do you sometimes wish that you were more attractive than you are?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you ever experience a feeling of vague uneasiness without knowing the reasons?. .
Do you have any nervous habits like twitching your face, neck, or shoulders?. . . . . . .. .

Are you disgusted at the sight of an unshaven man? .................................
Are you able to play your best in a game or contest against an opponent who is much
superior to you?............. ......
Do long-continued noises “get on your nerves”? ............... . ............... . ......
Do you generally prefer to take the lead in group activities9 ...........................
Do you often wish that you were physically stronger than you are? .......... . . . . . . . . . .
Areyoufearfulofburglars?. . . . ................... .......

Do you think you use up more energy than the average person in getting things done?
Do you like to sell things (that is, to act as a salesman)? .......................... . . .
Do you have one or more hobbies or skills at which you are outstanding?. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are you often so much “on the go" that sooner or later you wear yourself out? .......
Does it annoy you to see a person clean his fingernails in public? . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are there times when you feel as if your nerves were raw or “on edge"?. . . ...........
Do peOple usually give you credit for having good judgment? .........................
Do you often feel bubbling over with excess energy? . . . . . ............... . . . . . .. . . . . .

Are you easily disturbed by distracting stimuli when doing mental work?. . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you often feel reluctant to meet the most important person at a party or reception?
Do other people regard you as a lively individual? ....................................
Do you have a strong dread of fire9 .............................................. .. . . .

Do iyou often feel that few obstacles can stand in the way of your reaching your final
gas 39 ............................................................... . ..............

As a child did you often naturally fall into positions of leadership? ..... . ............
Do you ever have the feeling that there is nothing to live for? ........................

Do tyou often find that you cannot make up your mind until the time for action is
Dan, oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O ..... C ....... O OOOOOOOOOOOO .I.....-

Do you prefer going to a dance rather than to a prize-fight?. . . . . ............... . . . . . .
Do you seek to avoid all troublesome situations9 ......................................
Do you often show yourself up to your own disadvantage9 ......... . ................. . .
Do you become upset rather easily9 ..................................................
Are you willing to take a chance alone in a situation where the outcome is doubtful?”
Do you have any hestitation about calling down a person who does not play fair?“

Do you resent being "kidded" about your peculiarities? ............................. .

BE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

9‘

0'0".“ “NW“

9Q"... 9'.

"OH-OH N'OMO-‘NN

'0

°QNN9C°ON~9O

N~H~N9OH°¢9QGOH9¢-DONON

HWQNHNNQ “Mr;

No

No
No
No

No
No
No

No

No

No

128

129
130
131
182

133
134
135

136

137
138
139

140
141
141
143
144
145 l

 

146 l
147
143
119

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

 

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

 

176
177
178

179 g
180 .
181
182
183
184
186
186 l

“Yes," ‘,‘?" or "."No
a circle around the answer that describes your behavior best.
to decide between the “Yes" and the “No."

AN INVENTORY OF FACTORS S T D C R

 

Scores: S .............. T .............. D .............. C .............. R ..............

implication of right or wrong in any of these questions.

1. Do you express yourself more easily in speech than in writing? ............................................ Yes
2. Are you inclined to limit your acquaintances to a select few? ................................................ Yes
3. Do you generally prefer to take the lead in group activities? ................................................ Yes
4. Are you ordinarily a carefree individual?. -- ................................ . ............................. Yes
5. Do you like work that requires considerable attention to details? ........................................ Yes
6. Are you inclined to be moody? ...................................................... Yes
7. Do you usually have difficulty in, starting conversations with strangers? .......................... Yes
8. Are you inclined to act on the spur of the moment without thinking things over? ............ Yes
9. Do you work much better when you are praised? - Yes
10. Do you like to change from one type of work to another frequently? ................................ Yes
11. Are you self-conscious in the presence of your superiors? .................................................. Yes
12. Do you daydream frequently? Yes
13. Do you subscribe to the philosophy of “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we
die?" .. ......................... Yes
14. Are you inclined to worry over possible misfortunes? ........................ Yes
15. Are you frequently somewhat absent- minded? ............................ Yes
16. Are you relatively unconcerned about what others think of your actions? ........................ Yes
17. Are you inclined to keep 1n the background on social occasions? .- ............... Yes
18. Are you more interested in athletics than in intellectual things? .. .................... Yes
19. Are you impatient when waiting for a member of your family or for friends? .................. Yes
20. Do you like to speak in public? ........................... Yes
21. Are you inclined to live in the present, leaving the past and the future out of your
thoughts? ........................................................ Yes
22. Do you have frequent ups and downs in mood, either with or without apparent cause?. .Yes
23. Are you inclined to be slow cmd deliberate in movement? .................................................... Yes
24. Are your feelings rather easily hurt? .......................................................... Yes
25. Do you enjoy getting acquainted with most people? ............................... Yes
26.: Are you inclined to keep quiet when out in a social group? -_ ................. Yes
27. Do you adapt yourself easily to new conditions, that is, new places, situations,
surroundings, etc? ............ Yes.
28. Do you express such emotions as delight, sorrow, anger, and the like, readily? ................ Yes
29. Are you inclined to think about yourself much of the time? .................................................. Yes
30. Are you inclined to analyze the motives of others? ....... g .............................. Yes
31. Do you usually keep in close touch with things going on around you? .............................. Yes
32. Do you often have the “blues"? - ................................................................... Yes
33. Do you "get rattled" easily at critical moments? ................................................. Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Publisher: Sheridan Supply Co" Beverly Hills. Calif.)
(Copyright 1940, by I. P. Guilford)

V'Q-OQQNJ-fifi) “O‘Q'SJQQWJ'QQ'O‘OQ'O

QNJQNDWJ-O

'O‘Q'O'QHDQ'Q

No
No

No
N o
No
No
N o
No
No
No
No

No
No

No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

INSTRUCTIONS: Below you will find some questions which are to be answered by encircling either
Read each question in turn, think what your behavior has usually been, and draw
Encircle the ‘?" only when you are unable

BE SURE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. There is no

(Dmflmmtwav-fi

1".— x" 3;” ‘

 

PAGE 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34. Is it usually difficult for you to make decisions? ................................ Yes
35. Do you ever feel that the world is distant and unreal to you? ................................................ Yes
36. Is it difficult to “lose yourself" even at a lively party? .. Yes
37. Do you shrink from speaking in public? ........................................................... Yes
38. Do you have difficulty in making new friends? ........................................... Yes
39. Would you rate yourself as an impulsive person? ........................................................................ Yes
40. Were you ever the "life of the party?" .................................... ‘ ........................................................ Yes
41. Are you frequently in low spirit? ................................................................. Yes
42. Does it bother you to have people watch you at your work? .............................................. Yes
43. Do you frequently find yourself in a meditative state? . ........................... Yes
44. Are your daydrearns frequently about things that can never come true? ............................ Yes
45. Are you inclined to be shy in the presence of the opposite sex? .......................................... Yes
46. Are you inclined to be overconscientious? .. ................ Yes
47. Do you often crave excitement? ..................................................................... Yes
48. Do your interests change very quickly? ......................................................... Yes
49. Are you inclined to ponder over your past? .................................................................................. Yes
50. Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no good reason at all? .................................................. Yes
51. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? .................................... Yes
52. Do you often experience periods of loneliness? ............................... . ....Yes
53. Are you much depressed when others criticize you? .................................................................. Yes
54. Are you worried about being shy? .--.-.Les
55. Would you rather spend an evening reading at home than to attend a large party?....Yes
56. Do you worry over humiliating experiences longer than the average person? ...................... Yes
57. Would you like a position in which you changed from one kind of task to another

frequently during the day? ......... . ........................... Yes
58. Do you often find that you have made up your mind too 1ate?... Yes
59. Would you rate yourself as a tense or ‘high strung" individual? ........................................ Yes
60. Does your mind often wander while you are trying to concentrate? .................................. Yes
61. Do you nearly always have a “ready answer" for remarks directed to you? ...................... Yes
62. Are you inclined to ”jump at conclusions"? ............. Yes
63. Do you usually prefer to let some one else take the lead on social occasions? .................... Yes
64. Do you ever daydream? ................ Yes
65. Do you ever change from happiness to sadness, or vice versa, without good reason? ...... Yes
66. Do you usually derive pleasure from being “in the limelight" on social occasions? ............ Yes
67. Is it difficult to hurt your feelings, even when the joke is on you? .......... Yes
68. Do you often try to find the underlying motives for the actions of other people? .............. Yes
69. Are you inclined to stop and think things over before acting?“ ............................................ Yes
70. Do you generally feel uncomfortable when you are the center of attention on a

social occasion? Yes
71. Do you consider yourself less emotional than the average person, that is, less easily

upset? Yes
72. After a critical moment is over, do you usually think of something you should have

done but failed to do? .............. Yes
73. Would you rate yourself as a lively individual? ......................................................................... Yes
74. Are you philosophically inclined? ............................................ Yes
7 5. Do you often have a feeling of unworthiness? .............................................................................. Yes
76. Can you usually keep cheerful in spite of troubles? ................................................. . .................... Yes
77. Do you like to play pranks upon others? ............................................. Yes
78. Do you often feel that people are observing you on the street? ............................................ Yes
79. Do you feel lonesome even when with other peorie? ................................................................ Yes
80. Are you troubled with feelings of inferiority? ................................................................................ Yes
81. Would you rather be a scientist than a politician? ..... . ................................................................ Yes
82. Are you inclined to take life too seriously? ............................................................................ , ....... Yes

 

to w) '0 no "0 «o '0 "0 '0 -o '0 vs) no

"0

'0

No 3’
No 3
No 3
No 3
No 3
No 3
No 4
No 4
N o 4‘
No 4-
No 4‘
No 4i
No 4!
No 4'.
No 42
No if
No 5f
No 51
No 52
No 53
No 54
No 55
No 56
No 57
No 58
No 59
No 60
No 61
No 52
No 63
No 64
No 65
No ‘35
No 7
No 58
No 69
No 70
N o 71
No 72
No 73
No 74
No 75
No 76
No 77
No 78
No 79

No 30

No 31

No 8.7.

...4

 

 

 

 

83. In social conversations, are you usually a listener rather than a talker? .............................. Yes
84. Do you frequently feel that people around you are talking about you? ................................ Yes
85. Do you like to have time to be alone with your thoughts? ...................................................... Yes
86. Do you find it difficult to go to sleep at night because experiences of the day keep

“running through your head"? ..................................................................................... Yes
87. Are you inclined to take your work casually, that is, as a matter of course? ...................... Yes

88 Are you inclined to avoid meeting certain people on the street (bill collectors and

89.
90.
91.
92.
93.

94.

95.
96.
97.
98.

99.
100.

101.
102.

103.

1.04.
105

106.

107.

108.

109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.

120.
121.

122.
123.
124.

125.
126.
127.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the like not included)? ............................................................................................. Yes
Do you find it easy, as a rule to make new acquaintances? ................................................ Yes
Are you inclined to be quick and sure in your actions? ................................................. . ......... Yes
Are you troubled about being self- conscious?” ... ..-Yes
Do you often feel restless while listening to a lecture? ............................................................ Yes
Do you behave that people often misunderstand what you say? .......................................... Y es
Do you limit your friendships mostly to members of your own sex? ...................................... Yes
Does your mind wander badly so you lose track of what you are doing? ............................ Yes
Are you often in a state of excitement? .. .......... . ............................ Yes
Do you dislike to talk about yourself, even to close friends? .................................................. Yes
Do you prefer to be conservative in the matter of dress and personal appearance? ........ Yes
Do you like to discuss the more serious questions of life with your friends? ........................ Yes
Are you inclined to keep your opinions to yourself during group discussions (not

class discussions)? ................................................................................................................................ Yes
Do you enjoy thinking out complicated problems? ...................................................................... Yes
Are you inclined to be introspective, that is, to analyze yourself? ..................... . .................... Yes
Are there times when you seek to be alone and you cannot bear the company of

anyone? .............................................................................................. Yes
Are you much concerned over the morals of others? ................................................................ Yes
Do you frequently take time out just to meditate about things in general? ........................ Yes
Are you usually unconcerned about the future? ......................................................................... Yes
Do you usually become so absorbed in watching an athletic contest that you com-
pletely forget yourself? Yes
Can you relax yourself easily when sitting down? ..................................................................... Yes
Are you usually a ”good mixer"?.. ............................................................ Yes
Do you usually prefer a “slapstick" comedy to a serious drama at the movies? ................ Yes
Do you frequently find it difficult to go to sleep at night, even though you are tired? ...... Yes
Would you rate yourself as a happy-go-lucky individual? .................................................... Yes
Do you ever take your work as if it were a matter of life or death?.. .................................... Yes
Do you often “have the time of your life" at social affairs? ...................................................... Yes
Do you think there is a great deal more happiness in the world than misery? .................. Yes
Are you frequently “lost in thought"? .................................................................... Yes
Have you often lost sleep over your worries? ................................................................................ Yes
Do you like to mix socially with people? ................................ Yes
Do you believe that the morals of modern youth are generally superior to those of

former generations? ........................................... Yes
Are you inclined to think over your failures long after they are past? .................................. Yes
Are there times when your mind seems to work very slowly and other times when

it works very rapidly? ....................................... r ................................................. Yes
Are you inclined to avoid all people whenever possible? ........................................................ Yes
Do you enjoy participating in a showing of Rah Rah" enthusiasm? .................................. Yes

Do you usually feel disappointments so keenly that you cannot get them out of your

mind? ........................................................................................ Yes
Do you derive more real satisfaction from social activities than from anything else? ...... Yes
When you stop to consider your future, does it usually seem very optimistic? ................ Yes
Are you sometimes so "blue" that life seems hardly worth living? ..................................... ...Yes

 

 

"J

'0

N)

’0“)

fifl‘fi'x)

'Q‘OQQNJ’O'O'OND'O'QN)

‘0")

'0

Q'Q

"J'ONJNJ

PAGE 3

No
No
No

No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N o
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No

No

No
No
No

N o
No
No
No

83
85

86
87

88
89
90
91
92
93

95
96
97
98
99

100
101
102

103
104
105
106

107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118

119
120

121
122
123

124
125
126
127

-1. .‘_l".._.L-' ht‘fi‘flj
.

1 .—
“...;

33.‘

 

PAGE 4

128.
129.
130.

131.
132.

133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.

140.
141.

142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.

153.

155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.

168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends? Yes
Do you spend a great deal of time in thinking over past mistakes? Yes
Would you be very unhappy if you were prevented from making numerous social
contacts? Yes
Do you often feel that there are very few things in life worth living for? ............................ Yes
Do you often run over in your mind the events of the day before going to sleep at
night? Yes
Do you often feel that social affairs are a waste of time? Yes
Do you frequently feel grouchy? Yes
Are you annoyed when a boisterous person attracts attention to himself in public? ........ Yes
Are you frequently bored with people? Yes
When failing to have your own way, do you often resort to resentful thinking? ................ Yes
Do you usually keep in fairly uniform spirits? Yes
. Do you usually prefer to take your recreations with companions rather than alone? ...... Yes
Are you usually in good spirits? Yes
Have you ever been bothered by having a useless thought come into your mind
repeatedly? Yes
Are you usually well-poised in your social contacts? Yes
Does it upset you much to lose in a competitive game? Yes
Do you spend much time in thinking over good times you have had in the past? .............. Yes
Are you often hesitant about meeting important people? Yes
Do you feel tired most of the time? Yes
Do you ever have a queer feeling that you are not your old self? Yes
Is it easy for you to act naturally at a party? Yes
Do you get tired of people rather quickly? Yes
Do you like to have many social engagements? Yes
Do you ever have to fight against bashfulness? Yes
Are you frequently "lost in thought" even when supposed to be taking part in a
conversafion? Yes
Do people find fault with you more than you deserve? Yes
. Do you often feel conspicuous in a group of people? Yes
Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes very sluggish? .................. Yes
Do you often speculate about why people behave as they do? Yes
Do you find it almost impossible to take another person fully into your confidence? ........ Yes
Have you found books more interesting than people? Yes
Have you often felt listless and tired for no good reason? Yes
Do you prefer action to planning for action? Yes
Do you often philosophize about the purpose of human existence? Yes
Do you become angry very quickly and also recover very quickly? - ........ Yes
Do you often think or dream of what you will be doing five years from now? .................... Yes
When you are bored do you feel like stirring up some excitement? Yes
Do you usually feel well and strong? Yes
Do you enjoy entertaining people? Yes
Is your own mood very easily influenced by people around you, that is, by happy
people or sad people? Yes
Does it embarrass you a great deal to say or do the wrong thing in a social group? ........ Yes
Do you like to indulge in a reverie (daydreaming)? Yes
Do you believe that “every cloud has a silver lining"? Yes
Do you often feel ill at ease with other people? Yes
Can you usually let yourself go and have a hilariously good time at a gay party? .......... Yes
Do you dislike to stop and analyze your own thoughts and feelings? Yes
Are you inclined to avoid all complicated problems of any sort? Yes
Do you think such questionnaires as this one are “silly"? Yes

 

NJ") ‘3“)

Q’OMV'O'OM'O“)

-o~v«>-o-oov-o-J-ow«ow-o-o«o “O-O'ONDNJWDMND-OQHJ

"D‘O'V'Q’O‘QNJNJ'Q

No
No

No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

128
129

130
131

132
133

135
136
137
136
139
MC

141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151

152
153
154
155
156
157

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166

167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOHNSON TEMPERAMENT ANALYSIS

Devised by Roswell H. Johnson

Directions

DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU HAVE READ ALL OF THESE DIRECTIONS

1.

10.

11 11.

12.

You are not to write or mark on thi: booklet in any way, but you will indicate your answers on the
machine-scoring answer sheet as explained below.

All. of the questions of this analysis refer to the person about whom they are being answered.
his Pereon is called S, or the subject. These questions do not apply to any other person who may
be describing this person, S, the subject.

The words, “he” “him" or “his", mean the subject, whether a man or woman.

Be sure you understand each question; read it twice if necessary. Please answer every question;
you can give your opinion if you are uncertain about the answer.

Do not think too long about any one question; answer as soon as you have thought it through and

She" gO_0n with the next question. Consider this person from the viewpoint of “knowing him as I
0: I think that in the given situation, the answer would be ............ ,” and then mark it-
When an

answer would be different if one considered the past rather than the present, answer

as of the present, unless the question expressly refers to the past.

On the answer sheet you are given three columns in which to mark your answer as follows:

PLUS (+) means “decidedly yes” or “mostly so".
MID- means “undecided”; neither definitely yes nor no.
MINUS (——) means “decidedly no” or “mostly not so”.

P1,, -
{753 do not mark the MID. column, unless the answer really belongs there to describe

3 Person, S, the subject.

Your answ
lines in th

row is the

er to each question is indicated by making a pencil mark within the pair of dotted

e column which will show your answer. Be sure that the number on the answer

Same as the number of the question in the booklet.

5.2:}: 31?“? answer sheet on a smooth, hard surface while marking your answers. Each pencil

answer; Ould be a heavy, black line filling the space Within the pair of dotted lines. 'Wher'r the

Tequir dare to be machine scored, you will be supplied with a specral electrographw penal winch t:
6 f0? thi: purpose.

If
you change an answer, erase your first mark completely.

Ex 1 -
Sheitanbagions or other comments are desirable and may be recorded on the reverse of the answer

n0t elsewhere.
Now, you a:-

e an e to write clearly or print your name and other requested data in the spaces provided
sw

er sheet ;—-then, you will open the booklet to the first question; find answer row

numb . . .
er 1 on your answer sheet; and proceed until you have fm1shed the booklet.

Copyright. 1941. by Roswell H. Johnson

Published by California Test Bureau
5916 Hollywood Boulevard. Hollywood 28. California

1w" '1???

“3..

Questions

Mark your answers on the answer sheet. Do not mark on this booklet. Write any comment you
care to make on the back of the answer sheet.

1.

Now-.4190»:

10.
11.

12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

28.
29.
30.

Does S want no more than two children in his family even though his health and income are
satisfactory.

Is one motive for S to go places so that he can talk about having been there?

Is S relatively calm when others are getting rattled?

Does S think the government is spending too much on relief and pensions?

Does S resent efforts of others to tell him what to do?

Does S make a considerable use of the telephone, dictionary, or atlas when not necessary?

Does S sometimes have sudden unexpected jerks of some of his muscles even though nothing has hap-
pened?

Is S very eager to have his own business, or be an independent professional man, or if in an organizav
tion to be in a position to give orders rather than to take them?

Does S write in for samples, catalogs, solve puzzles, or submit questions to radio programs at times?

Is S easy-going in the matter of discipline?

Does S tend to say what comes to mind without enough thought as to whether it would be better left
unsaid?

When hunting or fishing is S free from concern about the pain he inflicts on game, live bait, or fish?
Does S usually try to avoid being made a chairman ‘of a committee or an officer of an organization?
Does S give in or stop during a controversy to “keep the peace”?

Does S have a voice that flows evenly and smoothly?

Is 8 inclined to say little except in response?

Does S have jerking motions of some muscles when unexpected things happen?

Is S considerate in his demands on employees, relatives, or pupils?

Does S talk slowly (making due allowance for age)?

Does S sometimes surprise his acquaintances by unexpected actions?

Would S buy an article at the cheaper price if he noticed that the clerk has asked less than the price
tag indicates, apparently having misread it?

Does S act deliberately rather than impulsively?

Does S often keep his views to himself because they do not seem important enough to tell others?
Does S move about a good deal at a social gathering?

Can S make a speech or public performance without stage fright?

Is S likely to stay on the veranda by preference when some of the others go for tennis or a swim?

Does S have phobias, i.e., an unwarranted and disturbing hatred or fear of any object or group of ob-
jects or situations?

Is S good at “breaking the ice” in a social gathering?
Does S have the same religion, politics, or phi1050phy as his parents?

Is S constantly careful to protect his health?

_3 _

Laps: y-‘rrs- inal-.7

in: I" ..I-9". ”M u
a

- -v1'

7
p
.. ,'_'#.'¥"' .- — ...—

 

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

41.
42.
43.

45.

47.
48.
49.

50.
51.
52.
53.

S4.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

Is 8 so sure of himself that it sometimes annoys others?

Does S quickly recover his composure after an accident or similar disturbing incident?

Is S less attentive than most individuals to things going on around him?

Is S rather indifferent to maintaining the dignity and privileges of his job or place in life?

Can S work in a room with many others talking and work efficiently without strain?

Does S maintain uniformly, courteous behavior to other members of his family?

Is S the kind of a person one might call a “self starter”?

Can S enjoy a rest when there are distracting noises and movements about?

Does S love to travel and when on a trip does he seek new experiences characteristic of the country?
Does S chew pencils or bite fingernails?

Does S sometimes say things that are dominating so that peoples’ feelings are sometimes hurt?
Does S have few interests or activities of his own choosing?

Does S “stick-to-it” at the cost of much inconvenience rather than give up?

Does S have some thought pressing itself on his attention too much of the time to his annoyance?
Does S eat slowly (making due allowance for age)?

Is S as much influenced in his behavior by consideration of general welfare as by considerations of his
own advantage?

Does S sleep well?
Does S take responsibility with reluctance, because he is doubtful of his fitness for it?

Does S think that modern prisons coddle the prisoner too much so as to interfere with needed pun-
ishment?

Would you consider S a “go-getter”?
Is S so sympathetic with those he sees in pain as to want to do something about it?
Is S likely to give way to the wishes of others rather than to seek to have his own way?

Would S feel sympathetic with conscientious objectors in time of war, where it is a war of invading
other countries by one’s own country?

Does S try to convert people to his views in several fields in which he is not an expert?
Does S prefer to take a passive role in the clubs to which he belongs?

Does S become disturbed by harmless rattles, crickets or the wind?

Does S make a practice of offering help to motorists who need help, but do not ask for it?
Does S use all reasonable precautions to prevent accidents?

Does S accept defeat easily without any evidence of his disappointed feeling?

Would S probably resort to corporal punishment in the case of deliberate disobedience by his mm
child at age ten?

_4_

 

 

61..

63.

65.

67.

69.
70.
71.

73.
74.

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.

82.
83.

85 .
86.
87.
88.
89.

Does S get into scrapes occasionally?

Does S have a habit of blinking eyes or pulling at ears?

Does S fail to finish what he sets out to do, often enough to be a bother to him?
Does S incline to ride rather than walk when the distance is intermediate?

Do S’s “teeth get on edge” when hearing some noises?

Does S buy on credit to excess?

Is 5 emphatic in voice and manner?

Can S get along with children of various ages without becoming irritated by them?
Has S made more than one loan out of kindheartedness in which he was “worked” and never repaid?
Can S relax easily when sitting or lying down?

Does S favor zoning the city to control residence areas for negroes or orientals?

Does S become so scared or apprehensive at times so as to feel hot, or shivering or have skin get
goose-pimples, (goose-skin, goose-flesh)?

Is S impatient with a child’s strong desire for a worthless object?

Does S feel strongly convinced of the correctness of his views when in a controversy, excluding those
in which he is expert?

Does S worry more than the circumstances warrant?

Does S sometimes get quite “keyed-up” (exclusive of drinking)?

Does S make plans well in advance of the event and carry them out?

Does S often get so wakeful as to be disinclined to go to bed at the usual time?
Does S tend to put off doing things past the time that would be best?

Does S take necessary risks of misfortune without undue worry?

In traveling does S watch out to help the aged, infirm, or those with children rather than leave such
acts to the officials?

Does S talk less than his share when with others?

Does S break out in more explosive action or words than would be expected from the cause?

Does 5 stand by and avoid protecting an aninal from needless suffering?

Does S think less well of his ability than the facts warrant?

Is S Opposed to the parole system for criminals?

Does S try to “get things going” in the community to which he belongs?

Is S almost always truthful to others?

Is S lively enough so someone might refer to him as “always-on-the—go”?

In an automobile accident in which S is involved does he really try to see that any damage he did

is made good?

_5_

_ Fr;1:1"i—. W unearth-fl

f..—
AS.

It
I
‘ V

 

91.

93.
94.

96.
97.
98.

100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.

110.

111.

112.

113.
114.

115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.

Is S inclined to have a few select friends rather than a large circle of friends and speaking acquaint-
ances?

Is it very hard for S to take blame, so that he seeks to avoid it?

In social contacts is S thought of as warm-hearted?

Do his failures come hard to S?

Is S usually able to steady a difficult situation where “others lose their heads”?
Does S put into his conversation quite a few “knocks” about others?

Is singing or whistling often started by S out of the joys of life?

Does S express his emotions readily?

Is S independent in making a judgment uninfluenced by whether he likes or dislikes the leading sup
porter of the proposal in question?

Is S really fond of only a few people?
Does S make efforts to get others to laugh and smile?

Is S much interested in the affairs of other people?

 

Does S refrain from complaining, when the other is late to an appointment?
Is S sometimes thought of as a “wet blanket”?

Is S considered cheery by some people?

 

Does S think that someone is definitely unfriendly to him and works against him?

Does S nearly always find it easy to take an interest in other peoples’ interests in conversation?
When S does criticize, is it always tactful and really meant to be helpful?

Does S give judgments only after a weighing of the pros and cons?

Is S relatively unaffected in listening to emotional music?

-.4 _—..—-_._h __ -..——

Does S think less well of rivals than they deserve?
Does S express his satisfaction when he sees beautiful things?
Does S give very little time in his conversation to the criticism of people and thing“

. . . . . . I not do
Does S sometimes think people are looking at him or talking about him when they are real?

ing so?

Does S pay his debts and keep his promises when it is possible?

Does S get over bad news quickly?

Does 8 take criticism easily without resentment?

Do various satisfactions keep S’s life so full that life seems very much worth livingP
Does S find it easy to be impartial when called on to judge?

Does S “put his foot in it” often (make a tactless blunder)?

_5_

 

121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.

129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.

148.
149.
150.

151.
152.
153.

Is S hearty in greeting people?

Is S almost free from being suspicious of the actions of others?

Does S sometimes get the experience in hearing speakers of thinking that the speaker is referring to S?
Does S have a tendency to do some things beyond what good judgment would indicate?

Does S tend to exaggerate his grievances?

Does S adapt readily to new difficult conditions and situations?

Do death, sickness, pain, and sorrow enter largely into S’s dreams?

Does S live an easy-going life with only few enthusiasms to express? . E“

Does S think as well of those with whom he has a disagreement, as before? ..
Does S often ponder on the misfortunes of his past?
Doe's S show a uniform rather than a varied expression in talking?

Is S hard to please?

 

Does S carry out assignments promptly and systematically? law
Is S likely to be jealous?

Is S rather optimistic about opportunities for young people?

Is S “touchy” on several things about himself?

Is S bothered at times with the idea that nobody cares for him?

Does S look ahead and fail to smile and show interest when passing a beautiful child?

Is S well pleased with life and so never considered committing suicide?

Is S prejudiced in favor of his own club, college, state, etc.? .

Does S smile much?

Does S find that a minor failure or poor showing of his can be quickly forgotten?

Is S unsuccessful in acting, impersonating or relating incidents effectively?

I. s logical and scientific in his thinking? '

Does S comment on many shortcomings in the shows he sees and the books he reads?

Does S find that the memories of illness or pain pass out of mind fairly soon?

Does S feel abused notibeing able to do something, instead of adapting to it by some substitute
activity?

Does S prefer to be with adults nearly all the time rather than with children part of the time?

Does S only seldom express any grievances?

Does S have his opinions influenced by looking at things from the standpoint of his experience,
occupation, or training?

Do companions like to be with S?
Does S often have the blues?
After seeing a tragic motion picture or drama, does S quickly return to normal, rather than continue

being disturbed for a while?

_7_

 

154. Are personal interests unable to sway S from sound decisions?

155. Does S when on a picnic find himself sometimes unable to share the good spirits of the others?
156. Does S think well of most people, as to only rarely speak slightingly of them?

157. Does 8 show a cordial attitude only to close friends if at all?

158. Does S think someone does not like him and speaks critically about S to others?

159. Does S smile or laugh a good deal?

160. Can S see things as others see them, when he wishes to?

161. Does S, when he has a grievance straightened out, continue disgruntled for a while?

162. In voting does S study the personalities and issues, sometimes voting for a candidate of the other
party, rather than regularly voting the same party ticket straight?

163. Does S refrain from giving a kiss, hug, pat on the back or otherwise manifesting pleasure in meeting
friends, except as needed for politeness, after an absence of a fortnight or so?

164. When S loses something, is he almost free from the tendency to think that some one else stole or
mislaid it? -

165. Does S give too high an importance to his own interests and fields of knowledge in comparison with
others?

166. Does S find it hard to get started on a task that needs to be done?

167. Does S find it annoying to have any criticism made of himself even though justified and from which
he could profit?

168. Can S “stand-up” under adversity well?

169. Does S often feel sad because of his inferiority in some repects?

170. Does S show a friendly attitude in his voice or expression?

171. Does S prefer not to pass a cemetery, so as not to be reminded of death?

172. Does S spend only very little time or no time grumbling about the condition of his work?

173. Does S succeed in preventing his emotions swaying his judgment much?

174. Is S appealed to strongly by young lovers who are hampered by opposition?

175. In disagreements with associates does S find it hard to understand how the other can possibly differ
from him, so very one sided does the matter seem?

176. Does S find that grief over war victims and refugees comes to mind often?

 

177. Does S spend too freely in view of his income?
178. Does S think he has many warm friends?
179. Does S estimate his friends too favorably, in comparison with others whom he judges more severely?

180. Is S almost free from being disturbed by either his immaturity or aging?

181. Does S have spells of liveliness (lasting at least several days) rather than staying at about the saint

level?

182. Does S have spells of being sad and depressed (lasting at least several days) rather than Staying it
about the same .level?

' If
Now look back over your answer sheet to make sure you have an answer for every question»

you do not know, make the best guess you can.

 

- ur
Be sure to look to make sure you filled in the blanks at top of answer sheet shomf‘g yo
name, etc.

_3_

 

 

DO NOT OPEN UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

29

 

[9an [at :1... MW
MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY

INVENTORY

STARKE R. HATHAWAY. Ph.D.. and I. CHARNLEY McKINLEY. M.D.

 

This inventory consists of numbered statements. Read
each statement and decide whether it is true as {—12
plied to you or false as applied to you.

You are to mark your answers on the answer sheet
you have. Look at the example of the answer sheet
shown at the right. If a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY

TRUE, as applied to you. blacken between the lines in the column headed
T. (See A at the right.) If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as
applied to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed F. (See
B at the right.) If a statement does not apply to you or if it is something

 

 

Section of an-
swer sheet cer-
rectly marked

'rr
aléé
niil

 

 

that you don't know about. make no mark on the answer sheet.

Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself. Do not leave any

blank spaces if you can avoid it.

 

i In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number

 

 

of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet. Make your
marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to

change. Do not make any marks on this booklet.

Remember. try to make some answer to every statement.

NOW OPEN THE BOOKLET AND GO AHEAD.

 

Published by THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION. New York

Copyright 1943 by the University of Minnesota

47-18l TB

DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON THIS BOOKLET

 

l.

2.

3.
4.

5.

10.

ll.

12.
I3.
14.

15.

16.
I7.

18.
19.

20.
21.

23.
24.

I like mechanics magazines.

I have a good appetite.

I wake. up fresh and rested most mornings.
I think I would like the work of a librarian.

I am easily awakened by noise.

. I like to read newspaper articles on crime.

My hands and feet are usually warm enough.

. My daily life is full of things that keep me in-

terested.

. I am about as able to work as I ever was.

There seems to be a lump in my throat much of
the time.

A person should try to understand his dreams
and be guided by or take warning from them.

I enjoy detective or mystery stories.
I work under a great deal of tension.
I have diarrhea once a month or more.

Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk
about.

I am sure I get a raw deal from life.
My father was a good man.
I am very seldom troubled by constipation.

When I take a new job. I like to be tipped off on
who should be gotten next to.

My sex life is satisfactory.

At times I have very much wanted to leave
home.

At times I have fits of laughing and crying that
I cannot control.

I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting.

N 0 one seems to understand me.

25.

26.

27.
28.
29.

30.
31 .
32.

33.

34.

35.

3'7.
38.

39.

41.

44.

45.

I would like to be a singer.

I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth
shut when I'm in trouble.

Evil spirits possess me at times.

When someone does me a wrong I feel I should
pay him back if I can. just for the principle of
the thing.

I am bothered by acid stomach several times a
week.

At times I feel like swearing.
I have nightmares every few nights.
I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.

I have had very peculiar and strange experi-
ences.

I have a cough most of the time.

If people had not had it in for me I would have
been much more successful.

. I seldom worry about my health.

I have never been in trouble because of my sex
behavior.

During one period when I was a youngster I
engaged in petty thievery.

At times I feel like smashing things.

. Most any time I would rather sit and daydream

than to do anything else.

I have had periods of days. weeks, or months
when I couldn't take care of things because I
couldn't' 'get going."

. My family does not like the work I have chosen

(or the work I intend to choose for my life work).

. My sleep is fitful and disturbed.

Much of the time my head seems to hurt all
over.

I do not always tell the truth.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

‘ . .; “.7-1' "f '7

~.—.—
-

‘17-?"
‘1

t

MEL-e”

 

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

My judgment is better than it ever was.

Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all
over, without apparent cause.

When I am with people I am bothered by hear-
ing very queer things.

It would be better if almost all laws were thrown
away.

My soul sometimes leaves my body.

I am in just as good physical health as most of
my friends.

I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I
know but have not seen for a long time. unless

they speak to me first.

A minister can cure disease by praying and
putting his hand on your head.

I am liked by most people who know me.

I am almost never bothered by pains over the
heart or in my chest.

As a youngster I was suspended from school
one or more times for cutting up.

I am a good mixer.

Everything is turning out just like the prophets
of the Bible said it would.

I have often had to take orders from someone
who did not know as much as I did.

I do not read every editorial in the newspaper
every day.

I have not lived the right kind of life.

Parts of my body often have feelings like burn-
ing, tingling, crawling, or like "going to sleep."

I have had no difficulty in starting or holding
my bowel movement.

I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose
their patience with me.

I loved my father.

I see things or animals or people around me
that others do not see.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.
87.
88.
89.

I wish I could, be as happy as others seem to be.
I hardly ever feel pain in the back of the neck.

I am very strongly attracted by members of my
own sex.

I used to like drop-the-handkerchief.

I think a great many people exaggerate their
misfortunes in order to gain the sympathy and
help of others.

I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my
stomach every few days or oftener.

I am an important person.

I have often wished I were a girl. (Or if you are
a girl) I have never been sorry that I am a girl.

I get angry sometimes.

Most of the time I feel blue.

I enjoy reading love stories.

I like poetry.

My feelings are not easily hurt.
I sometimes tease animals.

I think I would like the kind of work a forest
ranger does.

I am easily downed in an argument.

Any man who is able and willing to work hard
has a good chance of succeeding.

These days I find it hard not to give up hope of
amounting to something.

Sometimes I am strongly attracted by the per-
sonal articles of others such as shoes. gloves.
etc., so that I want to handle or steal them
though I have no use for them.

I am certainly lacking in self-confidence.

I would like to be a florist.

I usually feel that life is worth while.

It takes a lot of argument to convince most
people of the truth.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

l 09.

110.

Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what
I ought to do today.

I do not mind being made fun of.

I would like to be a nurse.

I think most people would lie to get ahead.

I do many things which I regret afterwards (I
regret things more or more often than others
seem to).

I go to church almost every week.

I have very few quarrels with members of my
family. .

At times I have a strong urge to do something
harmful or shocking.

. I believe in the second coming of Christ.

. I like to go to parties and other affairs where

there is lots of loud fun.

I have met problems so full of possibilities that
I have been unable to make up my mind about
them.

I believe women ought to have as much sexual
freedom as men.

My hardest battles are with myself.

I have little or no trouble with my muscles
twitchm' g or jumping.

I don't seem to care what happens to me.

Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am
cross.

Much of the time I feel as if I have done some-
thing wrong or evil.

I am happy most of the time.

There seems to be a fullness in my head or
nose most of the time.

Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing
the opposite of what they request. even though
I know they are right.

Someone has it in for me.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

- 126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

I have never done anything dangerous for the
thrill of it.

I frequently find it necessary to stand up for
what I think is right.

I believe in law enforcement.

Often I feel as if there were a tight band about
my head.

I believe in a life hereafter.
I enjoy a race or game better when I bet on it.

Most people are honest chiefly through fear of
being caught.

In school I was sometimes sent to the principal
for cutting up.

My speech is the same as always (not faster
or slower, or slurring; no hoarseness).

My table manners are not quite as good at
home as when I am out in company.

I believe I am being plotted against.

I seem to be about as capable and smart as
most others around me.

I believe I am being followed.

Most people will use somewhat unfair means
to gain profit or an advantage rather than to
lose it.

I have a great deal of stomach trouble.

I like dramatics.

I know who is responsible for most of my
troubles.

The sight of blood neither frightens me nor
makes me sick.

Often I can't understand why I have been so
cross and grouchy.

I have never vomited blood or coughed up
blood.

I do not worry about catching diseases.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

‘.

11“” nurture “v.3_ge tnr '; ‘21“,

m...

bun-1—

132. I like collecting flowers or growing house

133.

134.

135.

I36.

137.

138.

139.

l 40.

141.

I42.

I43.

I44.

145.

146.

l 47.

148.

149.

150.

151.

plants.

I have never indulged in any unusual sex
practices.

At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster
than I could speak them.

If I could get into a movie without paying and
be sure I was not seen I would probably do it.

I commonly wonder what hidden reason
another person may have for doing something
nice for me.

I behave that my home life is as pleasant as
that of most people I know.

Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly.

Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either my-
self or someone else.

I like to cook.

My conduct is largely controlled by the customs
of those about me.

I certainly feel useless at times.

When I was a child. I belonged to a crowd or
gang that tried to stick together through thick
and thin.

I would like to be a soldier.

At times I feel like picking a fist fight with
someone.

I have the wanderlust and am never happy un-
less I am roaming or traveling about.

I have often lost out on things because I
couldn't make up my' mind soon enough.

It makes me impatient to have people ask my
advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am
working on something important.

I used to keep a diary.
I would rather win than lose in a game.

Someone has been trying to poison me.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

I70.

171.

172.

173.

Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or
ideas bothering me.

During the pat few years I have been well
most of the time.

I have never had a fit or convulsion.

I am neither gaining nor losing weight.

I have had periods in which I carried on ac-
tivities without knowing later what I had been
doing.

I feel that I have often been punished without
cause.

Icry easily.

I cannot understand what I read as well as I
used to.

I have never felt better in my life than I do now.
The top of my head sometimes feels tender.

I resent having anyone take me in so cleverly
that I have had to admit that it was one on me.

I do not tire quickly.

I like to study and read about things that I am
working at.

I like to know some important people because
it makes me feel important.

I am afraid when I look down from a high
place.

It wouldn't make me nervous if any membm
of my family got into trouble with the law.

There is something wrong with my mind.

I am not afraid to handle money.

What others think of me does not bother me.
It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stun!
at a party even when others are doing the

same sort of things.

I frequently have to fight against showing that
I am bashful.

I liked school.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

 

-__—-—

—_g-=‘

-——= u: -—

m.
175.
176.
177'.
173.
179.

180.

181.

182.
183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.
89.
190.

191.

192.

193.

194.

195.

I96.

I have never had a fainting spell.

I seldom or never have dizzy spells.
I do not have a great fear of snakes.
My mother was a good woman.

My memory seems to be all right.

I am worried about sex matters.

I find it hard to make talk when I meet new
people.

When I get bored I like to stir up some excite-
ment.

I am afraid of losing my mind.
I am against giving money to beggars.

I commonly hear voices without knowing where
they come from.

My hearing is apparently as good as that of
most people.

I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try
to do something.

My hands have not become clumsy or awk-
ward.

I can read a long while without tiring my eyes.
/

I feel weak all ever much of the time.
I have very few headaches.

Sometimes. when embarrassed. I break out in
a sweat which annoys me greatly.

I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance
in walking.

I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma.

I have had attacks in which I could not control
my movements or speech but in which I knew
what was going on around me.

I do not like everyone I know.

I like to visit places where I have never been
before.

197.

198.

199.

200.

201.
202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207.

208.
209.
210.
211.

212.

213.

214.

215.
216.

217.

218.

219.

Someone has been trying to rob me.
1 daydream very little.

Children should be taught all the main facts of
sex.

There are persons who are trying to steal my
thoughts and ideas. '

I wish I were not so shy.

I believe I am a condemned person.

If I were a reporter I would very much like to '

report news of the theater.
I would like to be a journalist.

At times it has been impouible for me to keep
from stealing or shoplifting something.

I am very religious (more than most people).

I enjoy many different kinds of play and
recreation.

I like to flirt.

I believe my sins are unpardonable.
Everyan tastes the same.

I can sleep during the day but not at night.

My people treat me more like a child than a
grown-up.

In walking I am very careful to step over side-
walk cracks.

I have never had any breaking out on my skin
that has worried me.

I have used alcohol excesdvely.

There is very little love and companionship in \
my family as compared to other homes.

I frequently find myself worrying about some-
thing.
It does not bother me particularly to see animals
suffer.

I think I would like the work of a building
contractor.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

... v— . ”.4" ‘a’b. fun
’1
’e

‘? .Ll‘el L-J‘JAA

1,;

‘ “s.

-i
fl...1il

 

220.
221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227.

228.
229.
230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.
238.

239.
240.

241.

I loved my mother.
I like science.

It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends
even though I cannot return the favor.

I very much like hunting.

My parents have often objected to the kind of
people I went around with.

I gossip a little at times.

Some of my family have habits that bother
and annoy me very much.

I have been told that I walk during sleep.

At times I feel that I can make up my mind
with unusually great ease.

I should like to belong to several clubs or
lodges.

I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I
am seldom short of breath.

I like to talk about sex.

I have been inspired to a program of life based
on duty which I have since carefully followed.

1 have at times stood in the way of people who
were trying to do something, not because it
amounted to much but because of the principle
of the thing.

I get mad easily and then get over it soon.

1 have been quite independent and free from
family rule.

I brood a great deal.

My relatives are nearly all in sympathy with
me.

I have periods of such great restlessness that
I cannot sit long in a chair.

I have been disappointed in love.
I never worry about my looks.

I dream frequently about things that are best
kept to myself.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253.

254.

255.

256.

257.

258.

259.

260.

261.

262.

263.

I believe I am no more nervous than most others.
I have few or no pains.

My way of doing things is apt to be misunder-
stood by others.

My parents and family find more fault with me
than they should.

My neck spots with red often.

I have reason for feeling jealous of one or more
members of my family.

Sometimes without any reason or even when
things are going wrong I feel excitedly happy.
"on top of the world."

I believe there is (1 Devil and a Hell in afterlife.

I don't blame anyone for trying to grab every-
thing he can get in this world.

I have had blank spells in which- my activities
were interrupted and I did not know what was
going on around me.

No one cares much what happens to you.

I can be friendly with people who do things
which I consider wrong.

I like to be with a crowd who play jokes on one
another.

Sometimes at elections I vote for men about
whom I know very little.

The only interesting part of newspapers is the

"funnies."

I usually expect to succeed in things I do.

I believe there is a God.

I have difficulty in starting to do things.

I was a slow learner in school.

If I were an artist I would like to draw flowers.

It does not bother me that I am not better look-
ing.

I sweat very easily even on cool days.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

 

._ -‘ I _.._—.<__——-—— ..T—:. _

264.
265.
266.

267.
268.
269.

270.

271.

272.

273.

274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
279.

280.

281.

282.
283.

284.

285.

I am entirely self-confident.
It is safer to trust nobody.
Once a week or oftener I become very excited.

When in a group of people I have trouble
thinking of the right things to talk about.

Something exciting will almost always pull me
out of it when I am feeling low.

I can easily make other people afraid of me.
and sometimes do for the fun of it.

When I leave home I do not worry about
whether the door is locked and the windows
closed.

I do not blame a person for taking advantage
of someone who lays himself open to it.

At times I am all full of energy.

I have numbness in one or more regions of my

My eyesight is as good as it has been for years.
Someone has control over my mind.

I enjoy children.

At times I have been so entertained by the
cleverness of a crook that I have hoped he
would get by with it.

I have often felt that strangers were looking at
me critically.

I drink an unusually large amount of water
every day.

Most people make friends because friends are
likely to be useful to them.

I do not often notice my ears ringing or buzzing.

Once in a while I feel hate toward members of
my family whom I usually love.

If I were a reporter I would very much like to
report sporting news.

I am sure I am being talked about.

Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke.

286.

287.

288.

289.

290.

291.

292.

293.

294.

295.

296.

297.

298.

299.

300.

301.

302.

303.

304.

305.

306.

I am never happier than when alone.
I have very few fears compared to my friends.

I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomit-
ing.

1 am always disgusted with the law when a

criminal is freed through the arguments of a
smart lawyer.

I work under a great deal of tension.

At One or more times in my life I felt that some-
one was making me do things by hypnotizing
me.

I am likely not to speak to people until they

speak to me.

Someone has been trying to influence my mind.
I have never been in trouble with the law.

I liked "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll.

1 have periods in which I feel unusually cheer-
ful without any special reason.

I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about
sex.

If several people find themselves in trouble, the

best thing for them to do is to agree upon a
story and stick to it.

I think that I feel more intensely than most
people do.

There never was a time in my life when I liked
to play with dolls.

Life is a strain for me much of the time.

I have never been in trouble Ecause of my sex
behavior.

I am so touchy on some subjects that I can't
talk about them.

In school I found it very hard to talk before the
class.

Even when I am with people I feel lonely much
of the time.

I get all the sympathy I should.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

I

‘ "i-u'.:m .:.In “-41).. m m

“l

 

307.

308.

309.

310.

311.

312.

313.

314.

315.

316.

317.

318.

319.

320.

321.

322.

323.

324.

325.

326.

327.

328

I refuse to play some games because I am not
good at them.

At times I have very much wanted to leave
home.

I seem to make friends about as quickly as
others do.

My sex life is satisfactory.

During one period when I was a youngster I
engaged in petty thievery.

I dislike having people about me.

The man who provides temptation by leaving
valuable property unprotected is about as much
to blame for its theft as the one who steals it.

Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk
about.

I am sure I get a raw deal from life.

I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep
out of trouble.

I am more sensitive than most other people.

My daily life is full of things that keep me
interested.

Most people inwardly dislike putting them-
selves out to help other people.

Many of my dreams are about sex matters.
I am easily embarrassed.
I wony over money and busineu.

I have had very peculiar and strange experi-
ences.

I have never been in love with anyone.
\

The things that some of my family have done
have frightened me.

At times I have fits of laughing and crying
that I cannot control.

My mother or father often made me obey even
when I thought that it was unreasonable.

. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.

329.

. 330.

331.

332.

333.
334.
335.
336.

337.

338.

339.
340.

341.
342.

343.

344.

345.

346.

347.
348.

349.
350.

351.

I almost never dream.

I have never been paralyzed or had any un-
usual weakness of any of my muscles.

If people had not had it in for me I would have
been much more successful.

Sometimes my voice leaves me or changes
even though I have no cold.

No one seems to understand me.
Peculiar odors come to me at times.

I cannot keep my mind on one thing.

I easily become impatient with people.

I feel anxiety about something or someone
almost all the time.

I have certainly had more than my share of
things to worry about.

Mostofthetimelwishlweredead.

Sometimes I become so excited that I find it
hard to get to sleep.

At times I hear so well it bothers me.
I forget right away what people say to me.

I usually have to stop and think before I act
even in trifling matters.

Often I cross the street in order not to meet
someone I see.

I often feel as if things were not real.

I have a habit of counting things that are not
important such as bulbs on electric signs. and
so forth.

I have no enemies who really wish to harm me.

I tend to be on my guard with people who are
somewhat more friendly than I had expected.

I have strange and peculiar thoughts.
I hear strange things when I am alone.

I get anxious and upset when I have to make a
short trip away from home.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

352.

353.

354.

357.

359.

360.

361.

I have been afraid of things or people that I
knew could not hurt me.

I have no dread of going into a room by myself
where other people have already gathered and
are talking.

I am afraid of using a knife or anything very
sharp or pointed.

. Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love.

. I have more trouble concentrating than others

seem to have.

I have several times given up doing a thing
because I thought too little of my ability.

. Bad words. often terrible words. come into my

mind and I cannot get rid of them.

Sometimes some unimportant thought will run
through my mind and bother me for days.

Almost every day something happens to
frighten me.

I am inclined to take things hard.

362. I am more sensitive than most other people.

363.

364.

365.
366.

At times I have enjoyed being hurt by someone
I loved.

People say insulting and vulgar things about
me.

I feel uneasy indoors.

Even when I am with people I feel lonely much

~ of the time.

/

367.

369.
370.

371

I am not afraid of fire.

. I have sometimes stayed away from another

person because I feared doing or saying some-
thing that I might regret afterwards.

Beligion gives me no worry.
I- hate to have to rush when worln'ng.

I am not unusually self-conscious.

372. I tend to be interested in several different hob-

bies rather than to stick to one of them for a
long time.

373.

374.

I feel sure that there is only one true religion.

At periods my mind seems to work more slowly

. than usual.

375.

When I am feeling very happy and active,

' someone who is blue or low will spoil it all.

376.

377.

378.

379.

380.

Policemen are usually honest.

At parties I am more likely to sit by myself or
with just one other person than to join in with
the crowd.

I do not like to see women smoke.

I very seldom have spells of the blues.

When someone says silly or ignorant things

. about something I know about, I try to set him

381.

382.

383.
384.
385.

386.
387.

388.

389.
390.
391.

392.

393.

394.

right.

I am often said to be hotheaded.

I wish I could get over worrying about things
I have said that may have injured other peo-
ple's feelings.

People often disappoint me.

I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself.
Lightning is one of my fears.

I like to keep people guessing what I'm going
to do next. '

The only miracles I know of are simply tricks
that people play on one another.

I am afraid to be alone in the dark.

My plans have frequently seemed so full of
difficulties that I have had to give them up.

I have often felt badly over being misunder-
stood when trying to keep someone from mak-
ing a mistake.

I love to go to dances.

A windstorm terrifies me.

Horses that don't pull should be beaten or
kicked.

I frequently ask people for advice.
GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

 

to?)

 

395.

396.

397.

398.

399.

400.

401.

402.

404.

405.

406.

'407.

408.

409.

410.

411.

412.

413.

414.

The future is too uncertain for a person to make
serious plans.

Often. even though everything is going fine for
me. I feel that I don't care about anything.

I have sometimes felt that difficulties were pil-
ing up so high that I could not overcome them.

I often think, "I wish I were a child again."
I am not easily angered.

If given the chance I could do some things that
would be of great benefit to the world.

I have no fear of water.

I often must sleep over a matter before I decide
what to do.

.Itisgreattobelivinginthesetimeswhenso

much is going on.

People have often misunderstood my intentions
when I was trying to put them right and be
helpful.

I have no trouble swallowing.

I have often met people who were supposed to
be experts who were no better than I.

I am usually calm and not easily upset.

I am apt to hide my feelings in some things, to
the point that people may hurt me without their
knowing about it.

At times I have worn myself out by undertak-
ing too much. '

I would certainly enjoy beating a crook at his
own game.

It makes me feel like a failure when I hear of
the success of someone I know well.

I do not dread seeing a doctor about a sickness
or injury.

I deserve severe punishment for my sins.

I am apt to take disappointments so keenly that
I can't put them out of my mind.

415.

416.

417.

418.

419.

420.

421.

422.

423.

424.

425.

426.

427.

428.

429.

430.

431.

432.

433.

434.

435.

436.

If given the chance I would make a good lead-
er of people.

It bothers me to have someone watch me at
work even though I know I can do it well.

I am often so annoyed when someone tries to
get ahead of me in a line of people that I speak
to him about it.
Attimeslthinklamnogoodatall.

I played hooky from school quite often as a
youngster.

I have had some very unusual religious ex-
periences.

One or more members of my family is very
nervous.

I have felt embarrassed over the type of work
that one or more members of my family have
done.

I like or have liked fishing very much.

I feel hungry almost all the time.

I dream frequently.

I have at times had to be rough with people
who were rude or annoying.

I am embarrassed by dirty stories.

I like to read newspaper editorials.

I like to attend lectures on serious subjects.
I am attracted by members of the opposite sex.
I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes.
I have strong political opinions.

I used to have imaginary companions.

I would like to, be an auto racer.

Usually I would prefer to work with women.

People generally demand more respect for
their own rights than they are willing to allow
for others.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

437.

438.

439.

440.

441.

442.

443.

444.

445.

446.

447.

448.

449.

450.

451.

452.

453.

454.

455.

456.

It is all right to get around the law if you don‘t
actually break it.

There are certain people whom I dislike so
much that I am inwardly pleased when they
are catching it for something they have done.

It makes me nervous to have to wait.

I try to remember good stories to pass them on
to other people.

I like tall women.

I have had periods in which I lost sleep over
worry.

I am apt to pass up something I want to do
because others feel that I am not going about
it in the right way.

I do not try to correct people who express an
ignorant belief.

I was fond of excitement when I was young
(or in childhood).

I enjoy gambling for small stakes.

I am often inclined to go out of my way to win
a point with someone who has opposed me.

I am bothered by people outside. on streetcars.
in stores. etc., watching me.

I enjoy social gatherings just to be with people.
I enjoy the excitement of a crowd.

My worries seem to disappear when I get into
a crowd of lively friends.

I like to poke fun at people.

When I was a child I didn‘t care to be a mem-
ber of a crowd or gang.

I could be happy living all alone in a cabin in
the woods or mountains.

I am quite often not in on the gossip and talk
of the group I belong to.

A person shouldn't be punished for breaking
a law that he thinks is unreasonable.

457.

458.

459.

460.

461.

462.

463.
464.

465.

466.

467.

468.

469.

470.

471.

472.
473.
474.

475.

476.

477.

I believe that a person should never taste an
alcoholic drink.

The man who had most to do with me when I
was a child (such as my father, stepfather,
etc.) was very strict with me.

I have one or more bad habits which are so
strong that it is no use in fighting against them.

I have used alcohol moderately (or not at all).

I find it hard to set aside a task that I have
undertaken. even for a short time.

I have had no difficulty starting or holding my
urine.

I used to like hopscotch.
I have never seen a vision.

1 have several times had a change of heart
about my life work.

Except by a doctor's orders I never take drugs
or sleeping powders.

I often memorize numbers that are not im-
portant (such as automobile licenses. etc.).

Iamoftensorrybecauselamsocrossand
grouchy.

I have often found people jealous of my good
ideas, just because they had not thought of them
first.

Sexual things disgust me.

In school my marks in deportment were quite
regularly bad.

I am fascinated by fire.
Whenever possible I avoid being in a crowd.
I have to urinate. no more often than others.

When I am cornered I tell that portion of the
truth which is not likely to hurt me.

I am a special agent of God.
If I were in trouble with several friends who
were equally to blame. I would rather take the

whole blame than to give them away.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

....

.-_‘._

. ,3” "

 

478.

479.

480.

481.

482.

483.

484.

485.

486.

487.

488.

489.

490.

491.

492.

493.

494.

495.

496.

r
I

I have never been made especially nervous
over trouble that any members of my family
have gotten into.

I do not mind meeting strangers.
I am often afraid of the dark.

I can remember "playing sick" to get out of
something.

While in trains. busses, etc., I often talk to
strangers.

Christ performed miracles such as changing
water into wine.

I have one' or more faults which are so big
that it seems better to accept them and try to
control them rather than to try to get rid of
them.

When a man is with a woman he is usually
thinking about things related to her sex.

I have never noticed any blood in my urine.

I feel like giving up quickly when things go
wrong.

I pray several times every week.

I feel sympathetic towards people who tend to
hang on to their griefs and troubles.

I read in the Bible several times a week.

I have no patience with people who believe
there is only one true religion.

I dread the thought of an earthquake.

I prefer work which requires close attention. to
work which allows me to be careless.

I am afraid of finding myself in a closet or
small closed place.

I usually "lay my cards on the table" with peo-
ple that I am trying to correct or improve.

I have never seen things doubled (that is. an
object never looks like two objects to me with-
out my being able to make it look like one
object).

497

498.

499.

500.

501.

502.

503.

504.

505.

506.

507.

508.

509.

510.

511.

512.

513.
514.

515.

516.

. I enjoy stories of adventure.
Itisalwaysagoodthingtobefrank.
Imustadmitthatlhaveattimesbeenworried

beyond reason over something that really did
not matter.

I readily become one hundred per cent sold on
a good idea. -

I usually work things out for myself rather than
get someone to show me how.

I like to let people know where I stand on
things.

It is unusual for me to express strong approval
or disapproval of the actions of others.

I do not try to cover up my poor opinion or pity
of a person so that he won't know how I feel.

I have had periods when I felt so full of pop
that sleep did not seem necessary for days at a
time.

I am a high-strung person.

I have frequently worked under people who
seem to have things arranged so that they get
credit for good work but are able to pass off
mistakes onto those under them.

I behave my sense of smell is as good other
people's.

I sometimes find it hard to stick up for my
rights because I am so reserved.

Dirt frightens or disgusts me.

I have a daydream life about which I do not
tell other people.

I dislike to take a bath.
I think Lincoln was greater than Washington.
I like mannish women.

In my home we have always had the ordinary
necessities (such as enough food. clothing. etc.)

Some of my family have quick tempers.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

_,_
_. _.-n— -I= _b _—

517.

' 518.

519.
520.

521.

522.
523.

524.

525.
526.

527.

528.
529.
530.

531.

532.

533.

534.
trying to do a thing.

535.

I cannot do anything well.

I have often felt guilty because I have pre-
tended to feel more sorry about something than
I really was.

There is something wrong with my sex organs.
I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule.

\
In a group of people I would not be embar-

rassed to be called upon to start a discussion
or give an opinion about something I know well.

I have no fear of spiders.
I practically never blush.

I am not afraid of picking up a disease or game
from door knobs.

I am made nervous by certain animals.
The future seems hopeless to me.

The members of my family and my close rela-
tives get along quite well.

I blush no more often than others.
I would like to wear expensive clothes.
I am often afraid that I am going to blush.

People can pretty easily change me even
though I thought that my mind was already

' made up on a subject.

I can stand as much pain as others can.
3

I am not bothered by a great deal of belching
of gas from my stomach. '

Several times I have been the last‘ to give uxp

My mouth feels dry almost all the time.

"-5.
Ltk"
I

536.
537.
538.
539.
540.

541.

542.

543.

544.

545.

546.
547.
548.
549.
550.

551.

552.

" 553.

It makes me angry to have people hurry me.
I would like to hunt lions in Africa.

I think I would like the work of a dressmaker.
I am not afraid of mice.

My face has never been paralyzed.

My skin seems to be unusually sensitive to
touch.

I have never had any black. tarry-looking
bowel movements. - -

Several times a week I feel as if something
dreadful is about to happen.

I feel tired a good deal of the time.

Sometimes I have the same dream over and
ovgr.

I like to read about history.

1 m7... partials and socials.

I never attend a sexy show if I can avoid it.
I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.

I likh repairing a door latch.

Sometimes I am sure that other people can
tell what I am thinking. .

I like to read about science.

1‘ am afraid of being alone in a wide-open

‘ place.

554.

555.

J
If Iiwere an artist I would like to draw children.

I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

'5'
t'

I..? AI.‘-M MK

-..—_ .y
.' A O

.— 3 n-a'vv—4— *

 

556.

557.

558.

559.

560.

561.

I am very careful about my manner of dress.
I would like to be a privatekwcretary.

A large number of people are guilty of bad
sexual conduct.

I have often been tightened in the middle of
the night. .

I am greatly bothered by forgetting where I
put things.

I very much like horseback riding.

562. The one to whom I was most attached and
whom I most admired as a child was a woman.
(Mother. sister. aunt. or other woman.)

563. I like adventure stories better than romantic
stories.

564. I can apt to pass up something I want to do
when others feel that it isn't worth doing.

565. I feel like jumping off when I am on a high
place.

566. I like movie love scenes.

 

.4 “‘11.... I _ “a... 4. .

198

APPENDIX C

CRITICAL RATIOS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PER-
CENTAGE OF RESPONSES BY SUCCESSFUL PAROLEES AND
THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES BY VIOLATORS ON
THE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE GUILFORD-MARTIN
INVENTORY OF FACTORS GAMIN, AN INVENTORY
OF FACTORS STDCR, THE JOHNSON TEMPERA-

MENT ANALYSIS, AND THE MINNESOTA
MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY

INVENTORY

(* denotes items at the .93 [.07] level of significance or better)

199

Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
1 0.54 37 1.10 73 0.57 109 0.77
2 0.30 38 0.91 74 0.85 110 1.42
3 1.12 39 1.28 75 1.24 111 1.56
4 0.42 40 0.92 76 2.86* 112 0.99
5 0.71 41 0.31 77 1.36 113 0.28
6 198* 42 0.64 78 1.28 114 0.71
7 0.74 43 0.44 79 0.72 115 0.19
8 1.74 44 2.45* 80 2.08* 116 339*
9 1.79 45 1.13 81 0.72 117 2.20*
10 0.96 46 1.46 82 1.02 118 1.27
11 0.36 47 191* 83 0.31 119 1.57
12 0.99 48 1.43 84 1.11 120 1.41
13 0.15 49 1.87* 85 0.73 121 0.99
14 0.68 50 1.23 86 0.29 122 0.59
15 1.71 51 1.13 87 0.41 123 1.38
16 1.29 52 1.03 88 0.16 124 1.85*
17 1.65 53 1.18 89 0.47 125 0.43
18 0.75 54 0.42 90 1.55 126 1.15
19 198* 55 1.21 91 0.15 127 1.26
20 1.56 56 1.74 92 2.34* 128 2.14*
21 0.60 57 1.09 93 1.64 129 0.34
22 0.73 58 0.95 94 1.01 130 1.42
23 1.18 59 0.46 95 0.66 131 1.27
24 1.28 60 1.08 96 0.91 132 0.74
25 0.44 61 1.28 97 0.82 133 0.67
26 0.95 62 0.28 98 0.57 134 0.69
27 0.57 63 1.38 99 1.31 135 0.22
28 0.37 64 0.33 100 0.21 136 0.80
29 1.66 65 0.72 101 0.86 137 1.05
30 1.22 66 0.64 102 0.79 138 0.59
31 0.99 67 0.63 103 0.98 139 1.49
32 192* 68 1.34 104 1.15 140 0.90
33 1.18 69 0.28 105 0.43 141 2.38*
34 1.01 70 1.28 106 1.40 142 0.72
35 1.64 71 0.93 107 0.87 143 0.38
36 1.45 72 0.32 108 298* 144 0.75

 

Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN (Continued)

200

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
145 0.36 156 0.56 167 0.88 178 0.39
146 2.14* 157 1.21 168 0.61 179 2.18*
147 1.13 158 0.36 169 1.85* 180 0.25
148 0.28 159 1.13 170 0.79 181 0.73
149 0.64 160 1.56 171 0.70 182 2.30*
150 0.68 161 0.78 172 0.86 183 2.04*
151 0.30 162 1.48 173 1.44 184 1.15
152. 1.13 163 0.34 174 1.75 185 0.43
153 0.33 164 0.61 175 1.04 186 0.63
154 1.25 165 0.14 176 0.56
155 1.85* 166 0.59 177 0.42

 

 

201

Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
1 0.77 37 0.31 73 1.14 109 0.33
2 1.43 38 0.26 74 1.27 110 1.25
3 1.10 39 1.70 75 0.83 111 0.48
4 0.30 40 0.45 76 0.38 112 1.15
5 1.67 41 0.69 77 0.71 113 1.18
6 0.15 42 0.75 78 0.89 114 0.72
7 0.30 43 0.44 79 0.97 115 1.10
8 0.32 44 0.38 80 2.46* 116 0.46
9 0.90 45 1.42 81 0.14 117 0.95

10 0.87 46 0.73 82 2.99* 118 0.38
11 0.43 47 0.28 83 0.59 119 1.41
12 258* 48 0.73 84 0.17 120 0.99
13 1.16 49 1.31 85 0.36 121 1.02
14 2.94* 50 0.43 86 1.10 122 1.14
15 1.14 51 0.30 87 0.70 123 1.13
16 1.27 52 0.85 88 1.52 124 0.45
17 1.13 53 0.87 89 1.47 125' 0.99
18 1.14 54 0.40 90 0.86 126 1.29
19 0.85 55 0.75 91 1.16 127 0.19
20 1.25 56 1.35 92 0.29 ' 128 1.79
21 1.13 57 252* 93 1.13 129 0.72
22 1.69 58 0.42 94 0.67 130 0.56
23 0.99 59 1.40 95 1.18 131 1.09
24 1.22 60 0.65 96 0.69 132 0.99
25 0.76 61 0.28 97 0.85 133 0.81
26 0.14 62 1.06 98 0.83 134 1.40
27 1.65 63 1.02 99 0.68 135 1.03
28 1.70 64 0.85 100 2.35* 136 0.47
29 1.70 65 0.50 101 0.45 137 1.39
30 0.45 66 1.28 102 1.70 138 0 .63
31 0.97 67 1.71 103 0.72 139 1.32
32 0 .78 68 0 .99 104 1.98* 140 1.27
33 1.22 69 0 .16 105 1.30 141 0 .99
34 0.81 70 1.13 106 0.85 142 0.43
35 1.02 71 0 107 1.31 143 0.71
36 1.46 72 0.31 108 0.75 144 0.28

 

Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR (Continued)

202

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
145 1.07 153 1.59 161 1.73 169 2.64*
146 2.36* 154 0.61 162 0.58 170 1.63
147 0.32 155 0.56 163 1.28 171 1.19
148 197* 156 1.28 164 0.66 172 1.64
149 0.68 157 0.57 165 1.67 173 0.71
150 1.41 158 0.90 166 0.48 174 0.62
151 1.74 159 0.89 167 0.85 175 0.57
152 0.63 160 0.90 168 0.71

 

 

203

Johnson Temperament Analysis

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
1 1.18 37 1.28 73 1.39 109 0.71
2 1.98* 38 1.28 74 1.21 110 2.13*
3 0.29 39 0.78 75 1.12 111 1.27
4 2.19* 40 0.63 76 0.88 112 0.25
5 1.19 41 0.56 77 0.96 113 1.06
6 0.79 42 0.99 78 0.45 114 1.65
7 0.29 43 0.91 79 1.14 115 1.17
8 0.47 44 1.18 80 1.20 116 0.76
9 0.99 45 2.13* 81 0.83 117 1.45
10 1.04 46 0.86 82 0.84 118 0.75
11 0.64 47 1.07 83 1.63 119 0.99
12 1.58 48 0.14 84 2.06* 120 1.19
13 0.29 49 1.55 85 0.35 121 0.49
14 0.29 50 0.64 86 1.35 122 2.80*
15 1.34 51 2.38* 87 1.55 123 0.28
16 0.44 52 2.86* 88 0.62 124 0.43
17 0.68 53 1.15 89 0.42 125 1.38
18 1.74 .54 1.19 90 1.97* 126 1.09
19 1.84* 55 1.50 91 0.99 127 2.24*
20 1.42 56 1.29 92 1.18 128 1.30
21 2.05* 57 2.21* 93 0.44 129 233*
22 1.79 58 1.25 94 0.70 130 1.13
23 1.27 59 1.85* 95 1.91* 131 0.76
24 0.70 60 0.57 96 0.83 . 132 1.90*
25 0.58 61 1.84* 97 0.97 133 2.17*
26 0.70 62 0.69 98 1.27 134 1.01
27 1.67 63 0.47 99 2.00* 135 2.73*
28 0.70 64 0.57 100 0.72. - 136 2.14*
29 0.86 65 0.51 101 0.59 137 2.66*
30 1.18 66 1.41 102 0.44 138 2.05*
31 0.16 67 0.71 103 0.30 139 0.98
32 1.09 68 1.06 104 0.57 140 0.46
33 1.36 69 0.79 105 2.04* 141 0.18
34 1.14 70 1.98* 106 0.16 142 1.88*
35 0.45 71 0.30 107 0.58 143 1.58
36 2.19* 72 0.75 108 1.28 144 1.54

 

Johnson Temperament Analysis (Continued)

204

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
145 1.03 155 2.04* 165 1.69 175 1.45
146 1.08 156 1.82* 166 1.01 176 0.85
147 0.43 157 2.26* 167 2.83* 177 0.42
148 0.99 158 2.33* 168 0.75 178 1.03
149 1.14 159 1.94* 169 0.74 179 1.02
150 0.55 160 2.25* 170 1.54 180 1.27
151 1.89* 161 2.54* 171 0.87 181 1.13
152 0.62 162 1.02 172 0.77 182 0.76
153 1.26 163 1.69 173 0.82
154 0.29 164 0.42 174 2.01*

 

 

California Mental Health Analysis

205

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
1 0.69 37 0 73 2.35* 109 0.30
2 0 38 0.99 74 0.55 110 0.31
3 0.92 39 0.52 75 1.41 111 0.42
4 1.30 40 0.70 76 0.75 112 0.37
5 1.45 41 1.77 77 1.25 113 0.95
6 0.40 42 0.76 78 1.81 114 0.80
7 0.44 43 0.95 79 0.81 115 1.50
8 0.16 44 1.81 80 0.34 116 0.80
9 2.18* 45 1.25 81 1.33 117 0.31

10 0.33 46 0.44 82 2.14* 118 1.67
11 1.52 47 0.92 83 0.29 119 0.93
12 0.71 48 0.71 84 0.56 120 0.64
13 1.57 49 0.49 85 0.58 121 1.25
14 1.63 50 0.28 86 0.58 122 1.53
15 0.75 51 3.18* 87 1.76 123 0.30
16 1.92* 52 1.63 88 1.69 124 0.17
17 0.51 53 1.40 89 1.03 125 0.49
18 0 54 0 90 0.72 126 0

19 1.09 55 1.38 91 0.30 127 2.80*
20 0.56 56 1.87* 92 0.26 128 0.94
21 1.00 57 1.32 93 1.76 129 0.30
22 2.46* 58 0.32 94 0.44 130 0.14
23 1.68 59 0.15 95 1.28 131 0.89
24 0.66 60 0 96 1.33 132 1.03
25 0 61 0.97 97 0.35 133 0.51
26 1.48 62 1.27 98 1.35 134 0.41
27 0.78 63 0.14 99 0.75 135 2.00*
28 2.32* 64 2.56* 100 2.36* 136 0.15
29 2.19* 65 3.43* 101 1.12 137 0.76
30 0.25 66 0.55 102 0.68 138 0.14
31 2.00* 67 0.70 103 1.71 139 0.91
32 1.29 68 0.91 104 0.18 140 0.57
33 1.54 69 1.27 105 0.78 141 1.31
34 0.85 70 0.46 106 0.21 142 0.34
35 0.28 71 0.75 107 0.57 143 0.66
36 1.57 72 0.79 108 1.76 144 0.61

 

California Mental Health Analysis (Continued)

206

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
145 0.86 159 0.44 173 1.62 187 0.64
146 1.17 160 1.71 174 0 188 0.30
147 212* 161 0.70 175 0.61 189 1.32
148 1.71 162 0.56 176 2.09* 190 2.38*
149 0.40 163 0.71 177 262* 191 1.43
150 0.73 164 0.58 178 0.14 192 0.57
151 1.40 165 0.99 179 0.86 193 0.28
15.2 2.30* 166 0.34 180 0.99 194 0.85
153 264* 167 1.77 181 1.40 195 0.79
154 0.16 168 1.77 182 0.24 196 1.12
155 1.27 169 1.03 183 1.25 197 1.14
156 0.82 170 0 184 1.43 198 1.27
157 0.99 171 0.47 185 1.42 199 0.45
158 1.58 172 0.75 186 1.07 200 0.76

 

 

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

207

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
1 0.97 37 1.15 73 0.45 109 1.76
2 1.41 38 1.73 74 1.31 110 0.69
3 0.97 39 0.98 75 1.19 111 0.14
4 0 40 0.58 76 0.42 112 1.26
5 0.57 41 0.50 77 0.14 113 1.55
6 1.70 42 0.97 78 0.61 114 1.02
7 1.40 43 0.93 79 1.71 115 1.82*
8 0.19 44 0.23 80 0.59 116 1.28
9 0.64 45 2.08* 81 1.72 117 2.02*
10 1.59 46 0.81 82 1.59 118 2.56*
11 0 47 0.49 83 0.71 119 0.94
12 1.24 48 1.04 84 1.14 120 1.41
13 0.53 49 0.55 85 0 121 0.68
14 2.90* 50 0.51 86 1.54 122 0.57
15 0.14 51 1.91* 87 0.36 123 1.27
16 0.19 52 1.39 88 1.20 124 0.78
17 0.71 53 0.86 89 0.45 125 0.51
18 0.47 54 2.38* 90 0.98 126 2.74*
19 0.63 55 2..l8* 91 0.25 127 0.31
20 1.76 56 1.84* 92 1.09 128 1.16
21 0 57 0.58 93 0.61 129 1.28
22 1.27 58 1.73 94 1.84* 130 0.29
23 0.81 59 0.30 95 0.74 131 0.56
24 0.20 60 0.58 96 0 132 0.14
25 1.15 61 1.71 97 2.22* 133 1.27
26 0.42 62 0.46 98 1.62 134 0.14
27 1.09 63 0.28 99 0.42 135 1.76
28 1.41 64 0.57 100 0 136 2.45*
29 1.03 65 1.02 101 1.23 137 0.86
30 0 .47 66 0 .20 102 1.49 138 0 .47
31 0.33 67 0.14 103 0.58 139 1.29
32 1.54 68 0.14 104 1.61 140 1.49
33 1.56 69 0.38 105 0.30 141 0.98
34 0.71 70 1.02 106 1.22 142 1.62
35 0.90 71 0.52 107 1.44 143 1.86*
36 0.56 72 1.42 108 1.54 144 0.85

 

208

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Continued)

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
145 0.34 181 0.56 217 0.45 253 1.51
146 0.82 182 1.60 218 0.89 254 0.43
147 0.14 183 1.24 219 0.94 255 0.89
148 1.78 184 0.51 220 1.42 256 1.14
149 0.36 185 0.81 221 0.69 257 0.20
150 1.93* 186 0.38 222 0.29 258 0.83
151 0.33 187 0.74 223 1.54 259 0.75
152 0.97 188 0.47 224 2.84* 260 0.14
153 0.59 189 0.55 225 1.06 261 0.43
154 1.18 190 0.48 226 1.69 262 0.30
155 0.29 191 0.63 227 0.49 263 0.29
156 0.83 192 1.50 228 1.22 264 0.57
157 1.09 193 0.29 229 0.44 265 0.29
158 1.29 194 0.84 230 1.14 266 1.25
159 1.14 195 0.44 231 1.03 267 0.32
160 3.05* 196 1.03 232 1.57 268 1.98*
161 0.23 197 1.25 233 0.31 269 1.67
162 1.01 198 0.41 234 0.70 270 0.28
163 1.32 199 1.62 235 0.85 271 1.29
164 0.21 200 1.40 236 0.61 272 3.06*
165 0.57 201 1.19 237 1.98* 273 0.40
166 0.47 202 0.24 238 0.63 274 0.31
167 0 .58 203 0 .42 239 1.55 275 0.49
168 0.59 204 1.28 240 0.99 276 1.03
169 0 .59 205 0 .58 2.41 0 .29 277 1.74
170 0.43 206 1.79 242 0.43 278 0.63
171 1.43 207 1.21 243 1.33 279 0.88
172 0.61 208 0.57 244 0.71 280 0.14
173 1.80 209 1.02 245 0.57 281 0.85
174 0.14 210 1.09 246 0.58 282 1.72
175 1.02 211 0.24 247 1.95* 283 1.32
176 0 212 2.04* 248 0.85 284 1.01
177 1.63 213 0.77 249 1.43 285 0.14
178 0.91 214 1.20 250 0.28 286 0.68
179 0.47 215 1.18 251 0.77 287 1.71
180 0.32 216 1.15 252 2.04* 288 0.71

 

209

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Continued)

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
289 0.48 325 0.52 361 0.47 397 0.31
290 1.21 326 0.49 362 2.21* 398 0.29
291 0.59 327 1.19 363 0.50 399 0.85
292 0.44 328 1.47 364 0.93 400 1.28
293 0.22 329 2.04* 365 0.26 401 0.14
294 0.15 330 0.88 366 0.60 402 1.29
295 1.28 331 1.18 367 0.85 403 0.61
296 0.43 332 0.99 368 1.42 404 0.45
297 0.46 333 0.76 369 1.57 405 0.15
298 0.28 334 0.82 370 1.38 406 0.47
299 1.37 335 0.30 371 1.16 407 0.84
300 O .99 336 0 .82 372 1.84* 408 0 .16
301 0.99 337 1.73 373 0.42 409 1.13
302 0.72 338 1.14 374 0.43 410 0.14
303 2.30* 339 1.76 375 0.85 411 1.55
304 0.44 340 0.64 376 0.47 412 0.76
305 0.75 341 1.06 377 0.46 413 0.57
306 1.19 342 1.40 378 1.15 414 0.49
307 0.42 343 1.40 379 0.42 415 0.72
308 0.42 344 0.68 380 1.66 416 2.05*
309 0.99 345 1.02 381 1.60 417 1.13
310 0.83 346 0.69 382 0.14 418 1.34
311 3.03* 347 0.42 383 0.14 419 1.13
312 1.49 348 0.57 384 0.59 420 2.82*
313 0.44 349 1.46 385 1.33 421 0.75
314 0.43 350 1.11 386 1.73 422 0.86
315 0.61 351 0.44 387 0.30 433 0.48
316 1.04 352 0.92 388 1.60 424 0.37
317 1.99* 353 0.42 389 0.45 425 1.34
318. 1.67 354 0.37 390 0.71 426 1.13
319 0.99 355 1.80 391 0.96 427 1.39
320 1.09 356 0.54 392 2.32* 428 0.68
321 0.76 357 1.18 393 0.49 429 0.30
322 0.30 358 1.24 394 1.58 430 0.92
323 0.85 359 0.33 395 1.00 431 0.15
324 0.50 360 0. 33 396 1.86* 432 0.71

 

210

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Continued)

 

 

 

Item CR Item CR Item CR Item CR
433 1.02 467 0.57 501 0.58 535 0.69
434 1.22 468 1.15 502 0.84 536 1.14
435 1.63 469 1.33 503 0.42 537 0.44
436 1.22 470 1.28 504 0.85 538 0.79
437 1.87* 471 1.02 505 0 539 1.47
438 0.96 472 0.26 506 0.49 540 1.48
439 0.45 473 1.05 507 1.27 541 0.31
440 0.69 474 0.28 508 0.90 542 0.70
441 0.42 475 0.99 509 0.76 543 1.49
442 0 4.76 0.92 510 1.19 544 0.71
443 0 477 1.13 511 0.17 545 1.14
444 1.30 478 1.70 512 0.66 546 1.15
445 0.36 479 0.15 513 0.85 547 2.40*
446 1.69 480 0.42 514 0.18 548 0.89
447 1.71 481 2.14* 515 0.71 549 0.53
448 1.29 482 0.14 516 2.08* 550 , 0.98
449 0.56 483 0.99 517 0.36 551 0.30
450 0.42 484 1.34 518 1.16 552 0.76
451 1.03 485 1.90* 519 0.45 . 553 1.67
452 0 486 1.04 520 1.69 554 1.27
453 1.14 487 0.63 521 0.58 555 1.46
454 2.36* 488 0.56 522 0.29 556 0.55
455 0.43 489 0.99 523 1.28 557 0.70
456 1.64 490 1.22 524 0.71 558 1.03
457 2.28* 491 0.30 525 1.48 559 0.94
458 0.99 492 1.85* 526 0.49 560 0.60
459 0.18 493 0.70 527 1.57 561 0.50
460 0.49 494 0.83 528 0.90 562 1.50
461 0.56 495 0.56 529 1.76 563 0.32
462 0.59 496 1.42 530 0.87 564 1.67
463 0.29 497 0.93 531 1.03 565 1.86*
464 0.85 498 1.16 532 0.97 566 1.29
465 0.99 499 1.74 533 1.01
466 0.43 500 0.57 534 0.92

 

 

v'

 

 

79179.7}...

 

 

1“ " . a
L’ ? 7 "f

I . I. o
rib-i ~. 34 "s t

w ' 01
, .

 

 

 

 

v
P .
Q «L I
1., , “name
.- .. %\ ya a -‘ '5. _J ._ ‘- .-\ w“
1"? 5.1"? . ' - z 'v .
' ’\ _ -
.' ' If ’ A. .4- -- '7‘ 1' if“) ’
. ‘m t
I
.'11. .' 1 I
'r 1' 1" ' ' f ‘,1__ . ' r 1
r —"—— — —'—_—~

 

"I7'111114111111111111111“