1995
DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.359
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment research in correctional settings: Methodological issues and practical problems.

Abstract: This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
6

Year Published

1998
1998
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
6
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Hopwood et al advocate a combined approach to BPD assessment and we thus recommend that future research replicate our findings while supplementing self-report measures with other such corroborating sources such as diagnostic interviews of BPD and behavioural assessments of self-injurious behaviours. This is perhaps more important in offender samples where special care must be taken when selecting and 20 administering assessment measures because the accuracy of these measures can be compromised through unique characteristics of the environment and sample (see Megargee, 1995, for discussion). In particular, the prison setting can impact on the measurement of selfinjurious behaviour because prisoners may be less likely to report engaging in such behaviour, or may actually be less able to engage in this behaviour due to the practical constraints of the environment (e.g., staff checks) and constraints on the expression of emotions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hopwood et al advocate a combined approach to BPD assessment and we thus recommend that future research replicate our findings while supplementing self-report measures with other such corroborating sources such as diagnostic interviews of BPD and behavioural assessments of self-injurious behaviours. This is perhaps more important in offender samples where special care must be taken when selecting and 20 administering assessment measures because the accuracy of these measures can be compromised through unique characteristics of the environment and sample (see Megargee, 1995, for discussion). In particular, the prison setting can impact on the measurement of selfinjurious behaviour because prisoners may be less likely to report engaging in such behaviour, or may actually be less able to engage in this behaviour due to the practical constraints of the environment (e.g., staff checks) and constraints on the expression of emotions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One limitation of these specialized paper-and-pencil measures, as well as of the more general assessment tools with the same format (e.g. MMPI-2, PAI), is that a minimum reading level is necessary (which may be especially problematic among forensic populations; Christensen & Grace, 1999;Jensen, Lindgren, Meurling, Inguar, & Levander, 1999;Megargee, 1995). Another limitation, at least for some tests, is that they require a relatively substantial amount of time to administer.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Dit is zeker het geval in een aantal specifieke contexten, zoals gevangenissen, waar de implementatie van assessmentprocedures sterk afhankelijk is van bijzondere randvoorwaarden (Black e.a., 2004). Voornoemde problemen maken dat de screenings-en assessmentprotocollen die nu in penitentiaire settings gebruikt worden, in eerste instantie vaak beperkt (dienen te) blijven tot het gebruik van schriftelijke zelfrapportage-instrumenten (Megargee, 1995;Richards & Pai, 2003;Shearer & Carter, 1999). Ten slotte is het afnemen van uitgebreide testbatterijen in gevangenissen vaak niet vanzelfsprekend door allerhande praktische en financiële moeilijkheden (voor een overzicht van belangrijke en settingspecfieke moeilijkheden zie o.a.…”
Section: Inleidingunclassified