-- Murder and Criminal Responsibility- An Examination of MMPI Profiles

7/28/2019 -- Murder and Criminal Responsibility- An Examination of MMPI Profiles

1/7

Murder and Criminal Responsibility:An Examination of MMPI ProfilesRichard Rogers, Ph.D .William Sem an, Ph.D.

ABSTRACTThe clinical forensic applications of the M MPI in: (I) the identification ofviolent behavior, including murder, and (2) the determination of sanity, is

briefly reviewed. Samples of evaluatees charged with murder were obtained inChicago and Toledo, and were examined o r differenceson MM PIprofiles fo revaluatees clinically determined t o be sane versus insane. Further comparisonswere made between these evaluatees and a group of treated patien tspreviouslyfoun d not guilty by reason of insanity o r murder. Results suggested tha t theMMPI is limited in its discriminability between sane and insane evaluatees,and specifically questioned the usefulness of certain profiles in rendering sani-ty opinions. The MM PI did demonstrate expected differences bet ween insaneevaluatees and their treated counterparts.

sychologists in recent years have experienced an expansion in their roleP n the pretrial evaluations of patient-defendants on the issue of criminalresponsibility (Le., was the patient-defendant sane or insane at the time of analleged crime?). This expanded role has been observed in the increased will-ingness for jurisdictions to hear psychological testimony on criminal respon-sibility (Sobel, 1979),discussion of psychologists unique contributions to in-sanity proceedings (Delman, 198l), and studies stressing the particular exper-tise of psychologists in completing insanity evaluations (Poythress&Pettrella,note 1). Despite these changes, there has been little systematic research on the

1. Poythress, N.G. & Petrella, R. The quality of forensic examinations: An interdisciplinary study. Paperpresented at the American Psychology and Law Society Meeting, Baltimore, October 1979.Richard Rogers, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology at Rush Medical College,Chicago, Illinois. William Seman, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Court Diagnostic and TreatmentCenter, Toledo, Ohio. Please address reprint requests and correspondence to: D r. Richard Rogers, Isaac RayCenter, 1720 West Polk Street, Chicago, Illinois 60612.

VOL. 1,NO.2 1983 89


2/7

Criminal Responsibility / con(.

utilization of psychological tests in the examination of criminal forensic pa-tients. From this perspective, Poythress (1979) indicated that standardizedpsychological tests were not designed to address specific legal questions, andtherefore, their generalizability for this purpose has remained unestablished.Several prominent forensic psychologists, (e.g., Whitaker, 1976) have ques-tioned the clinical utility and validity of test interpretations under such highlyspecific conditions such as an alleged murderer being assessed for sanity at thetime of the crime.Ziskin (1981) specifically addressed the issues of reliability, validity, andgeneralizability, in the employment of MMPI in criminal forensic evaluations.He stated that while the MMPI has demonstrated perhaps the greatest promisein such evaluations, it was limitedby low test-retest reliability, problems in theidentification of response sets, variable effectiveness in discriminatingpsychiatric diagnosis, and use of out-moded criterion groups. In light of thesecriticisms of the MMPI and its potential usefulness in criminal responsibilityevaluations, the authors have selected a group of evaluatees, who were chargedwith murder, and examined their MMPI profiles for differentiating patternsbetween those clinically judged sane and insane.From an empirical perspective, the relationship of violent behavior (in-cluding murder) to the MMPI has been examined through two distinct ap-proaches, The first is the establishment of differentiating MMPI patternsutilizing the standard scales with specific criteria as criminal recidivism (Can-ton, 1962), violent behavior in a correctional setting (Jones, Beidleman, &Fowler, 1981), and sexual aggression (Rader, 1977). Sutker, Allain, and Geyer(1978) found, in a study of 22 female murderers in comparison with 40non-violent female offenders, that the murderers scored significantly lower o nscalesF and 4, and higher on K and 5 . Further, they found a preponderance ofnormal profiles among the murderers and a concentration of conduct dis-orders for the nonviolent offenders. No additional studies were found whichspecifically addressed differences between murderers and non-murderers. Asecond approach is the construction of specific scales for the differentiation ofviolent individuals from other MMPI groups. This approach was attemptedby Freeman and Mason (1952) and in extensive work by Megargee and hisassociates on the development of the overcontrolled hostility scale (Megargee,Cook, and Mendelsohn, 1967; Megargee, 1970). These studies have not,however, focused specifically on murderers.Only one study was found (Kurlychek and Jordan, 1980) which examinedthe clinical utility of the MMPI in discriminating between sane and insanecriminal defendants. This study examined a total of 50male defendants (20 in-sane and 30 criminally responsible) on the basis of their validity and clinicalscales. The study found n o significant differences in comparison of raw scoresbetween the two groups. The authors attempted a chi-square analysis of2-point codes between the responsible and insane subgroups; this analysis,while producing significant differences, violated the basic requirements forchi-square through its insufficient sample size. The study therefore provides90 BEHAVIORALSCIENCES &THE LAW


3/7

Criminal Responsibility / CON.

only preliminary d at a suggesting the nondiscriminability of the M M PI withregards to th e individual scales, and no statistically interpretable inform ationwith respect to specific two-point code types.In the present stu dy, th e clinical usefulness of the M M PI in differentiatingbetween sane and insane evaluatees charged with murder was examined , basedon a com parison with psychologists expert opinions regarding sanity and therespective M M PI profiles. It was assumed th at , for the M M PI to be clinicallyeffective, significant differences must be observed in individual scales or inpatterns of scales. The study did not address either the accuracy of thepsychologists opinion o r the validity of the underlying construct of insanity.A second research question posed in the present study was whether the M M P Icould differentiate between treated patients previously adjudged insane on

charges of murder and currently determined to be no longer in need ofhospitalization, from insan e evaluatees. It is hypothesized tha t treated patientsshould manifest differentiating profiles on the MMPI (i.e., generally lesselevated) on th e basis of such treatment than their hospitalized co unte rparts.METHOD

The sample (N =77) was collected retrospectively and , because of th e lowfrequency of insanity evaluations, represented all the available cases ofpsychological evaluations on murderers a t the d at a collection sites. T he d atawere gathered at two outpatient forensic centers: the Isaac Ray Center inChicago (including all cases from Janu ary 1979 to March 1982), and the CourtDiagnostic and Treatment Center in Toledo, Ohio (including all cases fromJanuary 1975 to March 1982). Th e psychological evaluations were completedby doctoral-level psychologists experienced in forensic evaluations, w ho, onthe basis of the MMPI and additional interview and test results, rendered adiagnosis a nd a n opinion regarding sanity a t the tim e of th e alleged crime.MMPI data, diagnosis, expert opinion regarding sanity, and demographicda ta were retrieved from test files. Psychological evaluations were available on77 individuals charged with m urder who w ere either evaluatees being exam-ined for sanity, o r treatment patients previously adjudicated as not guilty byreason of insanity. The evaluatees were further assigned to groups of sane(N =40) nd insane (N =12) evaluatees on the basis of th e psychologists con-clusions. The treatment patients (N=25) adjudged insan e, had received exten-sive inpatient treatmen t, (x 27.2 months) an d had progressed to the pointtha t they had been subsequently discharged to outpatient treatm ent. F or thetreatment group, the M M PI was administered after acceptance into ou tpatienttreatment and not as a determinant in the decision regarding discharge.Differences o n individual M M PI scales am ong th e three groups were exam-ined statistically by an analysis of variance w ith Duncans m ultiple rang e test(alpha = .05). Intergroup com parisons of M M PI scales patterns were exam-ined through multivariate analysis; this analysis was completed for both theentire sam ple as well as a refined samp le excluding those profiles with possible

VOL. 1.NO 2 1983 91


4/7

Criminal Responsibility / cant.

malingering (F - K index >7; based on generally accepted clinical rules:Dahlstrom, Welsh, and Dahlstrom, 1972; Grow, Eno, McVaugh, 1980).Discriminant analysis was also employed as a measure of the discriminabili-ty of MMPI profiles. Discriminant analysis is a statistical method involvingthe relative weighting of the individual scales to provide the maximal differen-tiation in patterns between criterion groups (sane and insane evaluatees). Thediscriminant function was formed on one-half of the sample (randomlyassigned) and cross-validated on the remaining sample. Finally, the Henrichsrevision of Meehl-Dahlstrom decision rules (see Dahlstrom, et al, 1972) wereapplied to the protocols for assigning individuals as having a psychosis,neurosis or character disorder. This was computed for each test evaluation andexamined through a chi-square analysis to test significant differences betweensane and insane evaluatees on these decision rules.RESULTS

Comparisons of evaluatees and treatment patients on the individual validityand clinical scales are presented in Table 1 . The MANOVA for examiningoverall group differences was significant with Wilks (26,126) =A .5611, p =.05. Employing the REGM program (Wilkinson, 1975) for identifying con-trasts among groups, both sane and insane evaluatees differed from treatmentpatients, but not from each other. A discriminant analysis for the maximal dif-ferentiation between sane and insane evaluatees correctly classified75 O% and83.3% of the sane and 68.8% and 50.0% of the insane. The canonical loadingsfor this discrimination were: F(.430), L(.363), K(.169), I(-.239), 2(-.254),3(-.368), 4(-.543), 5(-.015), 6(-.551), 7(-.317), 8(-.518), 9(.393), and 10(-.283).Attempts to improve the differences between sane and insane evaluateesthrough the exclusion of potential malingerers (F - K Index>7) was unsuccess-ful. No significance was established with Wilks (26,100) = .5493, p = .15.Further, Heinrichs revision of Meehl-Dahlstrom decision rules was in-conclusive with X 2=7 . 0 9 , ~ .07. Unexpectedly, it assigned 62.5% of the saneand 50.0% of the insane evaluatees as psychotic.

DISCUSSIONComparison of insane and sane evaluatees on the individual MMPI scalesyielded generally nonsignificant results with the only exception being Scale 5 .

This differentiation has little clinical relevance since Scale 5 is the least well-developed and standardized scale and its role has not been clearly establishedwith regard to psychopathology (Greene, 1981). The discriminant analysiswhich attempted to develop patterns between sane and insane evaluatees wasminimally successful, correctly identifying 68.8% of the sane, and 50.0% ofthe insane in the cross validation (the cross validation being the more rigoroustest of consistent discrimination). Thus, both individual scales and patterns of92 BEHAVIORALSCIENCES &THE LAW


5/7

Criminal Responsibility / conr.

Scales

LFK12345678910

Group Means Duncans MultipleRange Test(.05 Level)Group 1 : Group 2: Group 3: 1 vs 2 1 vs 3 2 vs 3Sane Insane InsaneEvaluatees Evaluatees Tx. Patients

52.38 51.33 57.4870.58 74.00 61.8851.05 52.75 54.2068.85 62.25 60.12 sig71.65 66.92 63.4469.15 64.00 60.08 sig78.08 77.17 68.08 sig sig57.18 65.17 60.92 sig74.93 76.92 62.76 s!g sig69.15 70.08 62.9257.98 58.00 53.52

73.00 68.42 63.52 slg83.00 81.00 67.88 sg

I I

MMPI scales were not statistically differentiated between sane and insaneevaluatees. Because of the retrospective nature of this study, it is impossible toassess to what extent the examining psychologists actually employed theMMPI in making their expert determinations. A prospective study would beparticularly helpful in assessing on what basis and to what extent MMPI pro-files may be utilized in insanity evaluations.

These results must be considered in light of Poythress observation (1979),that psychological tests were developed to address deficits in psychologicalfunctioning and not specific legal questions. The MMPI may therefore pro-vide corroborating information regarding the examinees honesty and currentpsychopathology; this may subsequently assist in establishing the diagnosisand opinion regarding sanity. The finding that neither the individual scales northe MMPI profiles systematically differentiate between the two evaluationgroups raises several issues: First, how were the MMPI results incorporated in-to the final determination of sanity? Second, what are the interrelationshipsbetween the mental disorder and the alleged criminal behavior? The study doesargue against the use of specific profile types as necessarily indicative of in-sanity or criminal responsibility. For example, elevations on scales 4 and 9which are frequently associated with sociopathy were nearly identical for theevaluation groups. Further, both groups had marked elevations on Scale 8which is frequently associated with disorganized thinking and schizotypal orschizophrenic disorders. Thus, MMPI profiles and scale configurations cannot be readily translated into an opinion regarding sanity.VOL. 1 , NO. 2 1983 93


6/7

Criminal Responsibility / C O N .

Additional comparison of evaluatees with treated insane patients weresomewhat more encouraging. Results of the MA NOVA with Duncans multi-ple range test indicated significance, pa rticularly between the sane evaluateesand treatm ent p atients (on scales 1, 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 ,an d 8 in the expected direction),and between insane evaluatees and treatmen t patients (on scales 4 and 7 in theexpected direction). T he com parison of insane evaluatees an d th e treatmentpatients is clinically relevant since such decisions must be m ade o n when an in-sane patient should be discharged to outpatient treatment. Relative decre-ments o n scale 4 were encouraging , suggesting the reduction of au thority an dinterpersonal conflict, and sociopa thic orien tation in discharged treatme nt pa-tients as compared to insane evaluatees. Likewise, the reduction in scale 7(which taps anxiety a nd obsessive-compulsive features) was a potentially posi-tive indicator in the clinical management of discharged patients found notguilty by reason of insanity. Further, overall differences between evaluateesan d treatm ent patients w ere observed in less elevated profiles fo r th e treatmen tgroup.A n additional attemp t t o differentiate between insane and sane evaluateeswas made by excluding potential malingerers with F-K index greater than 7 .This appeared t o have n o substantive effect in establishing differences betweenclinically determined sane a nd insane evaluatees, an d resulted in a nonsignifi-cant MANOVA. Finally, Henrichs revision of Meehl Dahlstrom rules forprofile discrimination were employed between the sane an d insane evaluateest o assess, according to a rationalistic approa ch, any differences in diagnosticassignment (psychotic vs. nonpsychotic) between the two groups; this ap-proach was likewise unsuccessful.Th e study raises questions concerning the clinical usefulness of the MM PI incriminal responsibility evaluations with respect t o m urder. Neither individualscales nor M M PI profiles appear to differentiate between th e tw o groups.With respect to the M M PI s discriminability between insane evaluatees anddischarged treatm ent patients, th e results are clearly more positive. Similarly,the utilization of other psychological tests instead of or in addition to theM M P I has generally not been exam ined empirically for insanity evaluations.Clinicians might consider the employment of structured interviews, as theSchedule of A ffective Disorders a nd Schizophrenia (Rogers and C avanaug h,1980,1981) an d specifically designed protocols (Rogers and Ca van augh , 1981;Robers, Dolmetsch, and Ca vanaugh , 1981;Rog ers, Sem an, Wasyliw, in press;Rogers, Wasyliw, an d Cavan augh , in press) which have demonstrated clinicalutility in discriminating between sane and insane evaluatees. Finally, it must beemphasized, tha t further exam ination of the M M P I with respect to differentoffenses and inco rporating a prospective design is imperative befo re any con-clus ive s ta tements may be made concern ing the MMPIs degree ofdiscriminability in insanity ev aluations.

94 BEHAVlORALSC lENC ES &THE LAW


7/7

Criminal Responsibility / COI I I .

REFERENCESCanton, J.H. The identification of habitual criminals with the MMPI. Journalof ClinicalPsychology, 1962,Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.D. A n MMPI Handbook, Vol. 1 . Clinical InterpretationDelman, R.P.O. Participation by psychologists in insanity defense proceedings: an advocacy. Journal of Psy-Freeman, R.A., &Mason, H.M. Construction of a key to determine recidivists from non-recidivists using theGreene, R.L. The MMPI: An Interpretive Manual. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1980.Grow, R., McVaugh, W., & Eno, T.D. Faking and the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1980, 36,Jones, T., Beidelsman, W.B., &Fowler, R.D. Differentiating violent and non-violent prison inmates by useofKurlychek, R.T., & Jordan, L. MMPI profiles and code types of responsible and non-responsible criminalMegargee, E.I. Prediction of dangerous behavior. Criminal Justice Bu lletin, 1976, 3, 3-22.Megargee, E.I., Cook, P.E., &Mendelsohn, G.A. Development and validation of an MMPI scale of assaul-tiveness in overcontrolled hostility individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1%7, 72, 519-528.Panton, K.H. MMPI profile configurations among crime classification groups. Journal of Clinical Psycho -

2, 133-136.(revised edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972.chiatry and the Law, 1980, 9, 241-262.MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psycholog y, 1952, 8, 207-208.

910-917.selected MMPI scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1981,37, 673-677.defendants. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1980,36, 590-593.

logy, 1958, I4, 305-308.Poythress, N.G. A proposal for training in forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 612-621.Rader, C.M. MMPI profiles of exposers, rapists, and assaulters in a court services population. Journal ofConsulting a nd Clinical Psycho logy, 1977, 45 , 61-69.Rogers, R., &Cavanaugh, J.L. Application of the SADS diagnostic interview in forensic psychiatry. Journalof Psychiatry and La w, 1981,9, 329-344.Rogers, R. , Cavanaugh, J.L., & Dolmetsch, R. Schedule of affective disorders and schizophrenia, adiagnostic interview in evaluations of insanity: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports. 1981, 49 ,135-138.Rogers, R., Dolmetsch, R., & Cavanaugh, J.L. An empirical approach to insanity evaluations. Journal ofClinical Psycholog y, 1981, 37, 683-687.Rogers, R., Seman, W., & Wasyliw, O.E. The RCRAS and legal insanity: A cross validation study. Journalof Clinical Psycholog y, in press.Rogers, R., Wasyliw, O.E., & Cavanaugh, J.L. Evaluating insanity: A study of construct validity. Law andHuman Behavior, in press.Sobel, S. Professional psychologists and state statutes on insanity pleas: A review. ClinicalPsychologist, 1979

Sutker, P.B., Allah, A.N., & Geyer, S. Female criminal violence in differential MMPI characteristics,Whitaker, L.C. Psychological test evaluation. In J.M. MacDonald, Psychiatry and the Criminal. SpringfieldWilkinson, L. REGM: A multivariate general linear hypothesis program for least square analysis ofZiskin, J. Coping with psychiatric andpsychological testimony (3rd edition). Venice, CA: Law and Psycho-

32, 7-9.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycho logy, 1978, 46 , 1141-1143.IL: C.C. Thomas, 1976.multivariate date. Behavioral Research Method s and Instrumentation, 1915, 7, 485-486.logy Press, 1981.

Documents

-- Murder and Criminal Responsibility- An Examination of MMPI Profiles