James Roger Brown - Organized Crime Management in Governement (Part Four)

ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT

PART FOUR

HOW MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL WORK USES LOGICAL FALLACIES TO CREATE JUNK SCIENCE EXPLOITED BY ORGANIZED CRIME IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS

If you think you see a rattle snake coiled up in the middle of your bed, don’t assume you are delusional until you hit it a few times with a stick and it looks good and dead. Bubba Ramdas, revered guru from Southern India.

Leaping into the snake pit^1,2,3,4,5

In Part Three, two broad categories of interacting logical fallacies were identified and described, Fallacies of Relevance and Fallacies of Presumption. There are three types of Fallacies of Relevance: (1) Appeal to Authority, (2) Appeal to Ignorance, and (3) Appeal to Emotion.

An intellectually honest person making an argument will appeal to reason, facts, or the truth. Bear in mind that an argument is a conclusion supported by reasoning documented by evidence. Citing a qualified authority with relevant expertise as evidence to support a conclusion should be distinguished from appealing to the alleged authority of someone without qualifications and relevant expertise who has expressed a personal opinion on a matter. A qualified authority in one area may have personal opinions about matters outside their area of expertise. The personal opinion of an authority outside their area of expertise is no more or less valid than the personal opinion of anyone else. An intellectually dishonest person will attempt to justify the use of logical fallacies by alleging that: (1) “truth” is relative, (2) “truth” does not exist, or (3) that “truth” is completely subjective.

If any or all the propositions that truth is relative, non-existent, or completely subjective are accepted, then it becomes impossible to tell a lie. Anything one might put forward as a true statement would have equal validity. This mental gymnastic is how intellectually dishonest mental health and social work practitioners justify to themselves falsifying reports and testimony (that is if they have sufficient conscience to be bothered by lying in the first place). One term for this belief system is “moral relativism.”

The types of Fallacies of Presumption are outlined below:

A. OVERLOOKING THE FACTS

1. Sweeping Generalization

2. Hasty Generalization

3. Bifurcation

B. EVADING THE FACTS

1. Begging the Question

2. Question-Begging Epithets

3. Complex Question

4. Special Pleading

C. DISTORTING THE FACTS

1. False Analogy

2. False Cause

3. Irrelevant Thesis

[NOTE: For an explanation and examples of each type of logical fallacy, please see the first installment of PART III.]

I. Fallacies of Relevance are a favored and powerful tool of political extremists and organized criminals operating in the child protection and mental health systems. When combined with Fallacies of Presumption, Fallacies of Relevance frequently overwhelm the abilities of the average person to determine that they are being bamboozled. [The term “bamboozled” comes from a form of torture in which the soles of the feet are beaten with bamboo until the person complies with the wishes of the torturer.]

A. An example of what may be the most despicable and destructive use of the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority in human history can be found in the mental health profession. The manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders is constructed by having members of the mental health professions propose and vote on the “disorders” that will be included in the manual.

The logical fallacy is that “x number of psychologists and psychiatrists can not be wrong,” x being whatever number of votes serve as the threshold of acceptance for inclusion in the manual. The resulting system is subject to blatant economic self-interest and political influence determining what is listed as a “mental disorder.”

An excellent example is the history of homosexuality. Homosexuality was, for several years, listed as a “mental disorder.” The homosexual community eventually gained sufficient political power to have homosexuality removed from the list of “mental disorders.”

For “mental disorders” included in the diagnostic manual to have any foundation in science, the diagnosis would have to be based upon a specified physiological or neurological disorder linked to observed behavior by a causal relationship. A diagnostic manual based on valid cause-and-effect science would specify the appropriate chemical, physiological, or objective technological tools (x-ray, CATSCAN, etc.) which would detect the presence of the physiological disorder that produces specific involuntary behavior and identify an effective treatment to correct the disorder.

If the number of people who believed something was true determined reality, all the uglier aspects of the human condition, such as war, could be rapidly solved by the expedient of convincing a majority to believe a problem, like war, did not exist. Under the current selection system for identifying the types of “mental disorders” that exist, any correspondence to reality is strictly coincidental.

B. The most malicious use of Appeal to Ignorance is the contrived use of Legislated secrecy shielding juvenile courts and the child protection system to conceal gross negligence, gross incompetence, perjury, falsification of records, and the systematic exploitation, neglect and abuse of children held in state custody. On two occasions, the Author received evidence that children held in state custody were being abused. A complaint was filed in each case, as required by law. In the first instance, the caseworker was fired. In the second instance, about two years after the first, the Author was required to bring to an interview by an Arkansas State Police Child Abuse Investigator, copies of his college degrees, copies of the photographic evidence, and was questioned for over an hour about what qualifications and expertise he had in child abuse, medicine, law, and other areas that would qualify him to question the actions of the Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Children and Family. Services. Such conduct by “child abuse investigators” has no other purpose than intimidating anyone who might have the audacity to allege children under State custody are being abused or exploited. Those running the child exploitation system are constantly improving their defenses.

The mechanism now in place to investigate complaints of children abused or neglected in Arkansas State custody is designed to require complainants to produce information and possess knowledge the average person will not have. This is nothing but a sophisticated use of Appeal to Ignorance. By making acceptance of the merits of a complaint conditional on the Author having knowledge irrelevant to whether or not abuse actually occurred, the State Police Child Abuse Investigator combined Appeal to Ignorance with the Fallacy of Relevance, Irrelevant Thesis as justification for dismissing the possibility that a child was abused by foster parents while in State custody.

C. Appeal to Emotion is the goose that continually lays golden eggs for the alliance of criminals and political extremists controlling the child protection system to meet their respective goals. With the exception of a small percentage of perverse individuals, most people are horrified by the thought of children being molested or intentionally abused by adults. Unscrupulous individuals have used this, and the reluctance of politicians to appear to support child molesters and abusers, to exploit the child protection system. Using the specter of overlooking an abused or molested child somewhere and the slogan “If we must err, we must err on the side of the child” (a complex question logical fallacy), laws have been enacted removing the presumption of innocence in child abuse allegation investigations and giving mental health and social work practitioners virtual control of peoples lives.

Mental health and social workers who have successfully ensconced themselves as purported experts in child abuse related cases can obtain payment through court orders, claims filed with State Crime Victim Reparation Boards, insurance claims for therapy and lucrative state contracts to evaluate children and parents drawn into Children and Family Services.

In his capacity as an expert on detecting and documenting pseudo science, science fraud, and structural corruption, the Author accompanied a client to observe and record a Court ordered psychological evaluation. The Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services contracted psychiatric evaluator refused to proceed with the evaluation, stating “No one is going to scrutinize my work.”

This is an example of the Special Pleading logical fallacy, which is a rampant attitude among psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, that they are a special class of people who should not be questioned because of their good intentions or special insight abilities which allow them to do what others, in their view, can not. Some have claimed to be infallible or unaware of ever having made an error in their entire career. The latter is because the consequences of their errors do not adversely impact their own lives. Such “experts” do not have to serve the prison terms of innocent persons wrongfully convicted of child abuse or molestation on their “expert” testimony that they are guilty.

Applied junk science: Logical fallacies and psychological testing⁶

II. Fallacies of Presumption:

Logical analysis of the interpretive structure of psychological tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test II (MMPI), demonstrate the systematic use of logical fallacies which produce pseudo scientific “psychological evaluations.” The MMPI contains 567 forced choice statements to which the person being “evaluated” must select “TRUE” or “FALSE” in response.

If such tests were valid diagnostic tools, each statement would detect a specific symptom produced by a specific physiological dysfunction. By comparing the pattern of responses to patterns of symptoms, a physiological disorder could be identified, in the same way a physician looks for symptoms in a physical examination.

The physician systematically detects the presence or absence of symptoms. A physician’s methods are based upon cause-and-effect relationships between physiological disorders and the symptoms they produce.

The MMPI items fall into two broad categories, physiological and cognitive police items. Table 1 reports the classification of all 567 MMPI items based upon the type of information required to respond to each item. Only 15% of the items (86) require information about an individual’s physiology.

Cognitive police items are based upon the classification of thoughts, ideas and beliefs as acceptable or unacceptable. Such classifications are arbitrary and represent the opinions of those who constructed the MMPI interpretive structure as to what individuals should or should not think. Thoughts adverse to those valued by the test builders are labeled as indicators of “mental illness.”

MMPI-2 ITEM CONTENT ANALYSIS

NUMBER OF ITEMS	PERCENT	STATEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
86	15.0	Diagnosis of physiological dysfunctions
481	85.0	Cognitive Police Items
38	6.70	Cultural conformity
21	3.70	Critical thinking
1	.18	Gender
39	6.88	Life experience
67	11.82	Life style
71	12.52	Personal belief
45	7.94	Personal preferences
18	3.17	Political thought
9	1.59	Religious thought
124	21.87	Social relations
48	8.47	Subjective value judgment
567	100.0	TOTAL

Table 1

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory II, and similar tests, are flawed by fallacies of presumption. Incorporating items that do not detect the presence or absence of symptoms produced by physiological disorders introduces irrelevance into the interpretation of responses.

A. Overlooking the Facts:

1. Sweeping Generalization: Item 1 on the MMPI is “I like mechanics magazines.” The interpretive structure for this item actually incorporates two sweeping generalizations. A person who selects “TRUE” scores no points on any of the psychological scales. The sweeping generalization is, “All persons who like mechanics magazines have no psychological problems.” A person who selects “FALSE” receives one point on four different scales. The sweeping generalization is, “All persons who do not like mechanics magazines have four psychological problems.” Other MMPI items also incorporate sweeping generalizations.

2. Hasty Generalization: The MMPI is supported by layered and interacting logical fallacies built upon the hasty generalization that statistical associations are sufficient to support the entire interpretive structure. Sir Karl Popper, author of the standards for identifying science for legal purposes adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 1993, has identified the fundamental problem in asserting probability as a basis for “scientific” conclusions.

To sum up point (a). Since we aim in science at high content, we do not aim at a high probability.

(b) The severity of possible tests of a statement or a theory depends (among other factors) on the precision of its assertions and upon its predictive power; in other words, upon its informative content (which increases with these two factors). This may be expressed by saying that the degree of testability of a statement increases with its content. But the better a statement can be tested, the better it can be confirmed, i.e. attested by its tests. Thus we find that the opportunities of confirming a statement, and accordingly the degree of its confirmability or corroboration or attestability, increase with its testability, and with its content.

To sum up point (b). Since we want a high degree of confirmation (or corroboration), we need a high content (and thus a low absolute probability).

Those who identify confirmation with probability must believe that a high degree of probability is desirable. They implicitly accept the rule: 'Always choose the most probable hypothesis!'

. (2) In taking up the challenge to construct a better definition of confirmation, I wish to say first that I do not believe that it is possible to give a completely satisfactory definition. My reason is that a theory which has been tested with great ingenuity and with the sincere attempt to refute it will have a higher degree of confirmation than one which has been tested with laxity;" (Sir Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1989. p. 287-8, emphasis added)

Asserting statistical association, or a probability statement, between an alleged psychological disorder and a non-diagnostic statement on the MMPI is insufficient to justify any claim that interpretation of the response is “scientific.”

3. Bifurcation: The bifurcation fallacy is incorporated into the MMPI in the 198 items (35%) which have scales associated with both the “TRUE” and “FALSE” responses. Item 16 on the MMPI is bifurcated with five (5) scales associated with the “TRUE” response and the L Scale (lying) associated with the “FALSE” response.

16. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about.

TRUE (5) FALSE (1)

S6 Paranoia (Pa) L Scale

S7 Psychasthenia (Pt)

S8 Schizophrenia (Sc)

SS College Maladj. (Mt)

SS P-Trau. Str. Dis. (PK)

Because Item 16 does not have face validity (the response interpretations are not based upon the content of the question, but statistical associations hidden from the person required to respond) the logical structure of the real question is:

16. Are you a OR b?

(a) (b)

S6 Paranoia (Pa) L Scale

S7 Psychasthenia (Pt)

S8 Schizophrenia (Sc)

SS College Maladj. (Mt)

SS P-Trau. Str. Dis. (PK)

The bifurcated question in statement form is:

"Are you a maladjusted paranoid college student with psychasthenia, schizophrenia and post traumatic stress disorder or are you lying?"

This is what has been passing for “scientific” psychological evaluation accepted by the judicial system.

B. Evading the Facts:

1. Begging the Question: As Sir Karl Popper has pointed out, statistical associations do not establish a scientific foundation. In “validating” the individual items contained in the MMPI, multiple statistical associations were put forth as a basis for establishing diagnostic value. Statistical associations between MMPI items and specific scales were based upon wives’ opinions about their husbands, surveys of air line pilots, surveys of students, and mental patients who were diagnosed by experts (also an example of circular reasoning).

Simply surveying different populations to establish numerous statistical associations to cite, does not overcome the basic fallacy begging the question. The strongest method for establishing a relationship between an MMPI item and a “psychological disorder,” would be to establish a causal relationship between a specific physiological dysfunction and selecting a specific response to an item. If no causal relationship exists, then the MMPI item has no diagnostic value.

2. Question-Begging Epithets: The existence of “lying scales” is an excellent example. If causal relationships existed between MMPI items and specific physiological disorders, lying would not be possible or relevant. The nature of a causal relationship is that x follows y on all occasions. If a tumor at a specific location in the brain caused a person to answer “FALSE” to MMPI item 1, then every person who had a tumor at that exact location, would select “FALSE.”

The function of “lying scales” is to label and dismiss persons who question the MMPI items or fail to select responses to all items. To validate the efficacy of the MMPI, responses must be selected for all items. Since responding to all MMPI items ensures positive scores on some scales, it constitutes “proof” that the MMPI detects the existence of psychological problems and that all people have psychological problems (another unproved sweeping generalization).

3. Complex Question: The structure of the MMPI presumes an affirmative answer to the prior question, “Do all persons have psychological problems?” With the assumed “yes” answer, the only proper use for the MMPI is to distinguish which psychological problems an individual has. It is not the purpose of the MMPI, and tests constructed in the same manner, to determine IF the individual being evaluated has psychological problems. The answer is already “YES.”

4. Special Pleading: The best example remains the assertion by psychology and psychiatry practitioners that they should not be held to the same standards of science as other professions. Special pleading exists in the MMPI foundation in the use of statistical associations rather than cause-and-effect relationships. Being granted this exception has retarded their development as real science practitioners and may ultimately be responsible for the destruction of the standing psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers currently have.

C. Distorting the Facts:

1. False Analogy:

Mixing MMPI items that require physiological information to respond with cognitive police items, falsely implies that cognitive police items have physiological diagnostic value.

2. False Cause: Constructing a “diagnostic” scale, such as the Paranoia Scale, from MMPI items which have high statistical correlation with a “psychological” disorder, does not establish a causal relationship. In fact, the use of multiple items to construct a scale violates a fundamental requirement for establishing a causal relationship. If a causal relationship existed, every paranoid individual would select all item responses included in the Paranoid Scale on every occasion it was administered until the physiological condition was altered to remove the paranoid state.

3. Irrelevant Thesis: Two of the stranger scales are the True Response Inconsistency Scale (TRIN)⁷ and the Variable Response Inconsistency Scale (VRIN)⁸. Responses to paired items deemed inconsistent, scores one point on each scale for each pair.

For two statements to be inconsistent, they must be contradictory. The statements “I love my Father” and “I hate my Father” are contradictory. Putting forth as inconsistent two statements that do not address the same logical category or are not contradictory, suffers from irrelevant thesis. A pair of items from the VRIN Scale are:

6. My father is a good man, or (if your father is dead) was a good man.

90. I love my father, or (if your father is dead) I loved my father.

The two items neither address the same logical categories nor contradict each other if both are answered “TRUE” or both answered “FALSE.” The contradictory of “My father is a good man” is “My father is a bad man.” It is possible to hate a father who is good if, for example, he were a missionary or diplomat posted abroad and absent from a child’s life. It is also possible for a child to love a father who is abusive.

The TRIN and VRIN tables may be viewed in their entirety in the footnotes.

Pulling it all together

In the privacy of your own home, you, too, can make your own junk science instruments that are self -validating! Amuse your friends! Develop your own “mental health” snake oil! BROWN’S AMAZING UNIVERSAL SWISS ARMY TOOL OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD, demonstrated below, incorporates the logical fallacies identifiable in the MMPI. It is pure junk science that can be adapted to place any label one might want on a person who would take the “test,” while being of virtually no scientific value. This can be accomplished by using carefully crafted bifurcated multiple scale associations with both responses. High statistical associations with any human trait or activity are ensured by the subject of the three statements.

Although this “test” is obviously ludicrous, the reality is that equally ludicrous items have been used in the “mental health” industry for over fifty years to send people to prison and mental institutions. To be labeled as whatever a test is “designed” to detect, all one has to do, is select an answer for every item included in one of these purported evaluation tests structured to produce false positives. If the intellectual fraud is completely successful, the person evaluated will also accept the false results as true. One cannot help but be reminded of the successful Nazi propaganda that resulted in Jews actually purchasing tickets to board trains that would take them to gas chambers.

BROWN’S AMAZING UNIVERSAL SWISS ARMY TOOL OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD!

1. I am right-handed.

TRUE FALSE

Spouse Abuse Potential Deviant Life Style

Child Abuse Potential Stress Scale

Ego Strength Work Problems Scale

Committed Child Abuse Anxiety Scale

Committed Spouse Abuse

2. I am left-handed.

TRUE FALSE

Spouse Abuse Potential Ego Strength

Child Abuse Potential

Deviant Life Style

Work Problems Scale

Stress Scale

Committed Child Abuse

Committed Spouse Abuse

Anxiety Scale

3. I am breathing.

TRUE FALSE

Spouse Abuse Potential Health Concerns

Child Abuse Potential Lying Scale

Committed Child Abuse Acute Anxiety

Committed Spouse Abuse

Deviant Life Style

Work Problems

Stress Scale

Ego Strength

Anxiety Scale

Inconsistency/Deception Scale

1. I am right-handed. TRUE

2. I am left-handed. TRUE

1. I am right-handed. FALSE

2. I am left-handed. FALSE

FINDINGS FROM RESPONSES

[Responding TRUE to both items or FALSE to both items would score one point on the Inconsistency/Deception Scale. This sounds reasonable until one considers how special populations could respond. An ambidextrous individual could honestly answer TRUE or FALSE to both questions. Persons without limbs, by accident or birth defect, could answer FALSE to both questions.]

A person answering TRUE to item 1 would be "diagnosed" as follows:

Respondent’s answers indicate past acts of both child abuse and spouse abuse. Potential to engage in child abuse and spouse abuse is indicated, as are ego strength problems.

It is possible to calculate the minimum and maximum scores for each scale created by bifurcation.⁹

Probing for the bottom of the snake pit

Those who may be tempted to dismiss Parts Three and Four of this series as intellectual nit-picking, should keep in mind that old adage about knowing a tree by its fruit. The consequences of this intellectual fraud for children, and the organized crime it supports, can be the destruction of their entire lives. Junk science is used to place children on psychoactive drugs, remove them from parental custody, label them as violent or sexual predators, and to justify forced placement in institutions or treatment programs.

This is not the worst atrocity committed by the alliance of political extremists and criminals exploiting the child protection, mental health and social work systems. Parts Five and Six will examine how children and adults are manipulated to lie and provide false testimony that financially benefits the criminal interests and helps political extremists achieve their goals.

Footnotes

¹In addition to professional publications and government reports, the popular media also reports horror stories about excesses and incompetence in the child protection system. Media article links to stories may be activated through “Lifting the Veil: Examining the Child Welfare, Foster Care and Juvenile Justice Systems” at:

http://home.rica.net/rthoma/newslink.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Audio News from Around the Web.

Audio news on the topics of foster care, child welfare and juvenile justice gathered from some of the Web's leading news sources.

(2) Featured article series

A selection of newspaper series exploring child protection, foster care, groups homes, juvenile justice and more. Included are links to series from the Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, Las Vegas SUN, and more. Updated March 21, 1999.

(3) 1999 News roundup

Articles on the subjects of child protection, foster care, and juvenile justice drawn from many of the leading newspapers. Articles are arranged in reverse chronological order, dating back to the beginning of the year. Frequently updated.

(4) 1998 News roundup

News articles dating back to the beginning of 1998.

(5) 1997 News Roundup

News articles dating from June through December 1997.

²Links to STUDIES, SURVEYS, AND AUDITS describing the state of affairs in the administrative divisions of the child protection system may be activated through:

http://home.rica.net/rthoma/studies.htm

I. Foster Care

II. Family Preservation

III. Juvenile Justice

IV. Child Welfare

V. Grand Jury Reports

VI.. Other Research

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. FOSTER CARE

(1) Assessing How Well the Foster Care Program In Kansas is Working, Part II: Funding, Staffing, and Monitoring Issues, Legislative Division of Post Audit, Report 99PA03.2, December 1998. (Download complete PDF report.)

(2) Assessing How Well the Foster Care Program In Kansas is Working, Part I: Services and Placements, Legislative Division of Post Audit, Report 99PA03.1, November 1998. (Download complete PDF report.)

(3) Foster Care. Tennessee Division of State Audit, Audit 97113, November 1998. (Download complete PDF report.)

(4) Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for Children of Substance Abusers. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-98-182, September 30, 1998.

(5) Foster Care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses Difficult Challenges. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-98-204, September 14, 1998.

(6) Verifying Information Provided by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services on its Compliance with the Terms of the Foster Care Lawsuit Settlement Agreement--Monitoring Report #8, Legislative Division of Post Audit, Report 98PA34.2, July 1998. (Complete PDF report.) See also Eye on Kansas for related reports.

(7) Retroactive Claims Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program in Indiana U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-05-97-00026, January 22, 1998.

(8) Foster Care Training Administrative Costs Claimed for Federal Reimbursement by the California Department of Social Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-09-96-00066, September 4, 1997.

(9) The State of the Children: An Examination of Government-Run Foster Care, Conna Craig and Derek Herbert, Institute for Children, National Center for Policy Analysis, August, 1997.

(10) Report of Costs Allocated to the Title IV-E Foster Care Program (State of Missouri)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-07-97-01027, June 11, 1997.

(11) Foster Care: State Efforts to Improve The Permanency Planning Process Show Some Promise. Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-97-73, May 7, 1997.

(12) Summary Report on Nationwide Audit of Training Contract and Administrative Costs Charged to Department of Health and Human Services Supported Programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-02-95-02002, April 25, 1997.

(12) Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite Permanency Hearings and Placement Decisions. Testimony, GAO/T-HEHS-97-76, February 27, 1997.

(13) Hevesi Audit Find Unsanitary Conditions At HRA Group Homes. Office of New York City Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, Preliminary Audit Findings, November 28, 1996. Auditors were barred and ejected by HRA personnel from seven homes during unannounced visits. Roaches, rodent droppings, spoiled and outdated food, chemicals stored with food and a lack of inventory records were found at group homes run by the Human Resources Administration during a follow-up audit by the Comptroller.

(14) Allocation of Title IV-E Training Costs - Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector

General, Audit A-05-96-00013, August 20, 1996.

(15) Follow-Up Audit Report on The Human Resources Administration's Foster Care Tracking and Claiming Systems. Office of New York City Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, Bureau of Financial Audit EDP Division, 7F 96-128, June 24, 1996. Details a pattern of gross fiscal mismanagement, and the use of "generic addresses" for foster children by the New York City Administration for Children's Services.

(16) Core Dataset Project: Child Welfare Service Histories. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. April 8, 1996. (16) Review of Missouri Claims for Training Costs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-07-95-01008, February 21, 1996.

(17) Retroactive Claims for the Title IV-E Foster Care Program Resubmitted by the Missouri Department of Social Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-07-95-01010, February 20, 1996.

(18) Maintenance Payments Retained by Child Placing Agencies in the Texas Foster Care Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-06-95-00035, February 6, 1996.

(19) Review of Rising Costs in the Emergency Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-01-95-02503, October 6, 1995.

(20) The Wisconsin Study of Youth Aging Out of Out-Of-Home Care: A Portrait of Children About to Leave Care. Mark Courtney and Irving Piliavin, School of Social Work and Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, September, 1995.

(21) Improvements Needed in Monitoring Child Placing Agencies in the Texas Foster Care Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-06-94-00041, August 5, 1995.

(22) Foster Care: Health Needs of Many Young Children Are Unknown and Unmet. Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-95-14, May 26, 1995.

(23) Report to the General Assembly: Selected Issues in Foster Care. South Carolina Legislative Audit Council, Reference: LAC/94-2, January, 1995.

(24) Respite Care Services for Foster Parents: Six Case Studies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Inspection, August 1994. Summary

(25) Foster Care: Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young Children. Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-94-89, April 4, 1994.

(26) Audit of Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility in California for the Period October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1991. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-09-92-00086, March 18, 1994.

(27) Review of Retroactive Foster Care Title IV-E Claims Submitted by the Missouri Department of Social Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit (A-07-92-00601, March 8, 1994.

(28) Residential Care: Some High-Risk Youth Benefit, But More Study Needed. Letter Report, HEHS-94-56, January 28, 1994.

(29) Foster Care: Federal Policy on Title IV-E Share of Training Costs. Letter Report, GAO/HRD-94-7, November 3, 1993.

(30) Cohort 2: A Study of Families and Children Entering Foster Care

1991-1993. Child Welfare Partnership, Portland State University

(31) Cohort2 Study: Branch Level Reports - State Summary and individual SOSCF Branch Level Information, including tables and graphs.

(32) Cohort2 Study: Final Report - Full Text of the Final Report, including tables and graphs.

(33) Cohort2 - Data Maps - Maps reflecting Level of Vulnerability and Family Factors.

(34) Cohort2 - PowerPoint© Slide Show - Slide show overview of Cohort2 Findings

(35) Using Relatives for Foster Care. Richard P. Kusserow, Office of the HHS Inspector General, OEI-06-90-02390, 1992.

II. FAMILY PRESERVATION

(1) Child Welfare: States' Progress in Implementing Family Preservation and Support Services. Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-97-34, February 18, 1997.

(2) Child Welfare: Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation and Support Activities. Letter Report, June 15, 1995.

(3) A Review of Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs. Westat, Inc. in association with James Bell Associates, Inc., and The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 30, 1995.

(4) A Synthesis of Research on Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs. Julia H. Littell and John R. Schuerman, Westat, Inc., in association with James Bell Associates, and the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. A part of the National Evaluation of Family Preservation Services for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. May, 1995. Executive Summary

(5) Intensive Family Reunification Programs. Ariel Ahart, Ruth Bruer, Carolyn Rutsch, Richard Schmidt, and Susan Zaro, Macro International, Inc., For the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 30, 1992. Executive Summary.

III. JUVENILE JUSTICE

(1) Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-99-13, January 11, 1999. (Report available in Plain text or in PDF format.

(2) Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings in Illinois Jurisdictions Outside Cook County: A Descriptive Report. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Report focuses on court proceedings in parts of Illinois other than Cook County. May 1997. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

(3) Timeliness and Delay in the Cook County Juvenile Court Child Protection Division. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Report focuses on court proceedings in Cook County. January 1997. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

(4) Assessment and Recommendations for Improving Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings in Montana Courts. Montana Supreme Court, Office of the Court Administrator. December 1996. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

(5) Improving the Court Process for Alaska's Children in Need of Aid. Alaska Judicial Council. October 1996. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

(6) Juvenile Justice: Status of Delinquency Prevention Program and Description of Local Projects. Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-147, August 13, 1996.

(7) At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions. Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 6, 1996.

IV. CHILD WELFARE

(1) Juvenile Out-of-Home Placement, Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division, Report Number: 99-02, January 11, 1999. Report examines Minnesota's locally-administered juvenile out-of-home placement system. It documents the reasons for placements and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the system.

(2) Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care Approach. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-99-8, October 21, 1998.

(3) Final Report: A Comprehensive Review of the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, American Humane Association, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group, and Pollmet, Inc. September 9, 1998.

(4) Healthy Start: Preliminary Results From National Evaluation Are Not Conclusive

General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-98-167, June 15, 1998.

(5) Child Protective Services, Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division, Report Number 98-01. January 13, 1998. Of particular interest is that this audit found the child fatality data was unreliable, to the extent that it reported twice the number of child fatalities which actually occurred over a two year period.

(6) Kern County: Management Weaknesses at Critical Points in Its Child Protective Services Process May Also Be Pervasive Throughout the State. California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits, Report Number 97103, January 1998. Summary or download the complete PDF report.

(7) Arizona Department of Economic Security, Division of Children,Youth and Families

Office of the Auditor General, Report No. 97-18, November, 1997.

(8) Social Service Privatization: Expansion Poses Challenges in Ensuring Accountability for Program Results. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-98-6, October 20, 1997.

(9) Kansans Talk Back: Early Responses To The Move To Privatization of Child Welfare Services. National Association of Social Workers, Kansas, October, 1997. Child Protective Services: Complex Challenges Require New Strategies, Letter Report, GAO/HEHS-97-115, July, 1997.

(10) Fifteen Years of Failure: An Assessment of California's Child Welfare System

Justin Matlick, Pacific Research Institute, March, 1997.

(11) The WISDOM Project. Donald J. Baumann, Homer D. Kern, and John D. Fluke, Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, January, 1997.

(12) Training Contract Costs Claimed For Federal Reimbursement By The California Department of Social Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit, August 9, 1996. Summary

(13) The Emergency Responce System: Screening and Assessment of Child Abuse Rep[o]rts, Ruth Lawrence Karski, Neil Gilbert, and Laura Frame. School of Social

Welfare, UC Berkeley, July, 1996.

Executive Summary.

(14) Child Abuse and Neglect in California. Legislative Analyst's Office, January, 1996.

(15) Rising Costs in the Emergency Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit, October 1995. Summary

(16) A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States. U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April, 1995.

(17) Oversight of State Child Welfare Programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Inspection, June 1994. Summary

(18) Emergency Assistance Payments Claimed by the Maryland Dept. of Human Resources. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, March, 1994. Summary

(19) Child Welfare System. Utah Legislative Auditor General, December, 1993. Download complete PDF report.

V. GRAND JURY REPORTS

(1) 1996 - 97 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, Juvenile Justice System, 1997.

(2) 1993 - 1994 San Diego County Grand Jury, Analysis of Child Molestation Issues, Report No. 7. June 1, 1994.

(3) 1992 - 1993 Santa Clara County Grand Jury, Investigation: Department Of Family And Children's Services, Final Report. 1993.

(4) 1991 - 1992 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY

The San Diego County Grand Jury reports are among the most comprehensive examinations of the child welfare, foster care and juvenile justice systems conducted by an independent body.

(a) Families in Crisis Report No. 2. February 6, 1992.

(b) Families in Crisis, Supplement June 29, 1992

(d) Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues Report No. 8. June 29, 1992

(5) County of Tom Green, Texas, Grand Jury Report, December 7, 1987.

VI. RELATED RESEARCH

(1) Marisol v. Giuliani Civil Complaint. Includes detailed account of agency operations and comprehensive history of the New York City child welfare system.

(2) Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at 13 Agencies. General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96- 154, September 30, 1996.

(3) Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers. General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-178, September 13, 1996.

(4) Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Effectiveness of Child Education Programs. General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-156, July 26, 1996.

(5) Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce Recidivism. General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-137, June 21, 1996.

(6) Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse. Gail Goodman, Final Report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Grant No. 90CA1405. Executive Summary.

³The current exploitative child protection system has produced the highest number of unnatural orphans in United States history. For personal accounts of surviving the child protection system, research, and publications see “Survivors of the System: Foster Children United” at:

http://www.sos-fosternet.org/index1.html

⁴Article links through PUBLISHED WRITINGS, Webmaster Emerich Thoma at:

http://home.rica.net/rthoma/

(1) A Reply to Andrew Vachss' "A Hard Look at How We Treat Children". Webmaster Rick Thoma replies to Andrew Vachss' March 29, 1998, article in Parade Magazine. This article appeared in the Summer 1998 edition of Vindicator, the journal of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

(2) “If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now:” The Business of Foster Care. Article published in the January 1999 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Issues in Child Abuse Allegations.

⁵Recipes for "little boy stew," "little boy pot pies," and "French fried kid" found in written material of convicted child molester “ruled nolonger sexually dangerous” who subsequently allegedly killed and ate a child.

Man charged in Montana cannibal case

Thursday, 21 December 2000 9:31 (ET)

http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=146252

BOSTON, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- Officials in Massachusetts expressed shock Thursday that a convicted child molester released after being ruled nolonger sexually dangerous faced charges in Montana that he butchered a 10-year-old boy and dined on the boy's cooked remains with unsuspecting acquaintances.

Suspected serial killer Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, 43, is charged with murdering Zachary Ramsay who disappeared while walking to school in 1996 in Great Falls, Mont.

Although the boy's remains have never been found, Montana prosecutors believe they have enough evidence against Bar-Jonah without a body.

"Just because he's clever enough to get rid of the body doesn't mean he will get away with homicide," Cascade County prosecutor Brant S. Light said in Thursday's Boston Globe.

Light said in Thursday's Boston Herald that the fact that the boy "may have been butchered and fed to others is real disturbing."

Investigators looking for Ramsay's body this year dug up small bones on Bar-Jonah's property, but DNA testing showed they belonged to another of the man's alleged victims.

Authorities believe Ramsay's remains were not found because Bar-Jonah cut up and cooked the body and served it to a small circle of friends. Those acquaintances told investigators Bar-Jonah occasionally brought them food that tasted "funny," such as burgers, stews, pot pies and chili he claimed were made from venison.

During the investigation, police found some of Bar-Jonah's cryptic handwritten notes that an FBI expert said contained messages like "little boy stew," "little boy pot pies," and "French fried kid."

Court records of earlier therapy sessions showed that Bar-Jonah's bizarre sexual fantasies "outline methods for torture, extending to dissection and cannibalism." A caseworker in 1980 wrote that Bar-Jonah "expresses a curiosity about the taste of human flesh."

Bar-Jonah was charged Wednesday in Great Falls with murder and kidnapping and was being held on $1.7 million bail.

Bar-Jonah is suspected in a series of other disappearances and murders. Police said he kept a list of 22 victims, the last being Ramsay.

Light said he was upset that Massachusetts officials allowed Bar-Jonah to move with his mother to Montana in 1991, where he was charged with sexual assault on an 8-year-old boy in 1994. He is scheduled to go on trial Jan. 16 on sex assault charges involving three other boys.

When known in Webster, Mass., as David P. Brown, Bar-Jonah spent 12 years at the Bridgewater State Hospital after trying to kill two Shrewsbury boys in 1977. He was freed after four mental health professionals convinced a judge he was no longer sexually dangerous.

One psychologist who evaluated Bar-Jonah years ago and felt he was still dangerous was shocked when told by the Herald of the new charges.

"Oh, God," said Leonard Bard. "That's horrible."

⁶Brown, James R. The Low Down Quick and Dirty Common Man’s Guide to the Essential Skills of Critical Thinking, THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN, North Little Rock, AR, 1999.

⁷Brown, James R. Pseudo Science and Pseudo Logic in Psychological Testing, THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN, North Little Rock, AR, 1999.

TRIN-TRUE RESPONSE INCONSISTENCY SCALE

Paired questions are listed with the responses considered inconsistent. Some pairs were counted as inconsistent if both were answered true or both were answered false and listed twice on the scale. Those are noted here with the protocol TRUE:FALSE and FALSE:TRUE rather than two separate listings.

(B) - Bifurcated.

# - Indicates paired items whose negatives are not equivalent to the other member of the pair or paired items that do not address the same logical class as subject.

3. I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. TRUE (C)

39. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. TRUE (B) (C)

12. My sex life is satisfactory. TRUE #

166. I am worried about sex. TRUE (B) #

40. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. TRUE (C) #

176. I have very few headaches. TRUE (B) (C) #

(Many sources of pain can affect the head.)

48. Most anytime I would rather sit and daydream than do anything else. TRUE (C) #

184. I dream very little. TRUE # (C)

(Daydreaming and night dreams are the product of different processes.)

63. My feelings are not easily hurt. TRUE

127. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. TRUE (B)

65. Most of the time I feel blue. TRUE:FALSE

95. I am happy most of the time. TRUE:FALSE

73. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. TRUE (B)

239. I am entirely self-confident. TRUE

83. I have very few quarrels with members of my family. TRUE (B) (C) #

288. My parents and family find more fault with me than they should. TRUE (C) #

99. Someone has it in for me. TRUE #

314. I have no enemies who really wish to harm me. TRUE #

(It is possible for individuals that are not personal acquaintance to "have it in for someone." This is the foundation of terrorism.)

125. I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of most people I know. TRUE:FALSE (C) #

195. There is very little love and companionship in my family as compared to other homes. TRUE:FALSE (C) #

(It is possible to believe "little love and companionship" is the normal experience.)

209. I like to talk about sex. TRUE (B) #

351. I am embarrassed by dirty stories. TRUE (B) #

("Talk about sex" does not require involvement of "dirty stories.")

359. I enjoy the excitement of a crowd. TRUE:FALSE #

367. Whenever possible I avoid being in a crowd. TRUE:FALSE #

(It is possible to "enjoy" a crowd but avoid crowds because of the inconvenience or risk of violence.)

377. I am not happy with myself the way I am. TRUE

534. If I could live my life over again, I would not change much. TRUE

556. I worry a great deal over money. TRUE #

560. I am satisfied with the amount of money I make. TRUE #

(Concern about money can be based upon issues other than income satisfaction, such as job security, national debt, interest rates, or national economic policy.)

9. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. FALSE #

56. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. FALSE #

(Perceived happiness of others is different from daily life interest level.)

140. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. FALSE #

196. I frequently find myself worrying about something. FALSE (B) #

("Frequently" and "most" are not equivalent.)

152. I do not tire quickly. FALSE (B) #

464. I feel tired a good deal of the time. FALSE (B) #

(The baseline level of fatigue is logically independent of the rate of fatigue brought on by additional work, unless both are related to a specific physiological condition.)

165. My memory seems to be all right. FALSE

565. It takes a great deal of effort for me to remember what people tell me these days. FALSE

262. In a group of people I would not be embarrassed to be called upon to start a discussion or give an opinion about something I know well. FALSE #

275. In school I found it very hard to talk in front of the class. FALSE (B) #

(This fails to allow for change over time.)

265. I am likely not to speak to people until they speak to me. FALSE (B) #

360. I do not mind meeting strangers. FALSE #

(The subjective desirability of meeting strangers and the personal ritual used to greed acquaintances are distinctly different.)

⁸Brown, James R. Pseudo Science and Pseudo Logic in Psychological Testing, THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN, North Little Rock, AR, 1999.

VRIN-VARIABLE RESPONSE INCONSISTENCY

(B) - Bifurcated.

# - Indicates paired items whose negatives are not equivalent to the other member of the pair or paired items that do not address the same logical class as subject.

3. I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. TRUE (C)

39. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. TRUE (B) (C)

6. My father is a good man, or (if your father is dead) was a good man. TRUE:FALSE #

90. I love my father, or (if your father is dead) I loved my father. FALSE:TRUE #

9. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. FALSE (C) #

56. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. FALSE (C) #

(See TRIN Scale comment for these items.)

28. I am bothered by an upset stomach several times a week. TRUE #

59. I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my stomach every few days or oftener. FALSE #

("Upset stomach" and "discomfort in the pit of my stomach" are not equivalent.)

31. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. TRUE (B) #

299. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. FALSE (B) #

("One thing" is a larger class than a specific "task or job.)"

32. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences. FALSE (B) #

316. I have strange and peculiar thoughts. TRUE (B) #

("Experiences" in common usage refers to life events, while "thoughts" are internal subjective phenomena.)

40. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. TRUE (C) #

176. I have very few headaches. TRUE (B) (C) #

(See comment in TRIN Scale.)

46. 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. TRUE #

265. I am likely not to speak to people until they speak to me. FALSE (B) (C) #

(These paired items are based upon logical classes that do not have all elements in common.)

48. Most anytime I would rather sit and daydream than do anything else. TRUE (C) #

184. I daydream very little. TRUE (C) #

(See comment in TRIN Scale.)

49. I am a very sociable person. TRUE (B) #

280. I seem to make friends about as quickly as other do. FALSE (B) #

(Sociability does not guarantee the acquisition of friends, as this assumes.)

73. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. TRUE (B) (C) #

377. I am not happy with myself the way I am. FALSE (C) #

(An individual may be self-confident and dissatisfied with their condition if it includes physical deformity or a temporary state due to illness or injury.)

81. I think most people would lie to get ahead. TRUE:FALSE (B) #

284. I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble. FALSE:TRUE (B) #

("Getting ahead" and "keeping out of trouble" are not the same logical class.)

83. I have very few quarrels with members of my family. TRUE (B) (C) #

288. My parents and family find more fault with me than they should. TRUE (C) #

(See comment in TRIN Scale.)

84. I was suspended from school one or more times for bad behavior. TRUE (B)

105. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for bad behavior. FALSE (B)

86. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there are lots of loud fun. TRUE #

359. I enjoy the excitement of a crowd. FALSE (C) #

("Parties" and "other affairs" are not the same as "crowd.")

⁹Brown, James R. Pseudo Science and Pseudo Logic in Psychological Testing, THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN, North Little Rock, AR, 1999.

Some bifurcated items have equal numbers of scales associated with each response option, while others have unequal numbers of scale associations. Although impossible to do, if the respondent could distinguish between the responses that would produce the highest and lowest adverse score, Table 2 shows the lowest and highest adverse scores possible to achieve using only the bifurcated items. Selecting all the response options with the highest number of scales are summarized under the HIGH column. The LOW column summarizes selecting all the response options with the lowest number of scale associations. The EQUAL column indicates the number of scales associated with bifurcated items having equal numbers of scales associated with each response option. In these instances, no strategic advantage is gained by selecting one response over the other to maximize or minimize the adverse score. The minimum and maximum adverse scores that would result from taking the test and answering all the question can be calculated by taking half the EQUAL column total and adding it to the HIGH or LOW column total.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ADVERSE SCORE ENSURED BY BIFURCATED ITEMS

Standard Validity and Clinical Scales (13 scales)

ITMS MEAN HIGH LOW EQUAL

15 2 1 1 L Scale [Lie]

60 6 0 0 F Scale [Infrequency]

30 9 11 3 K Scale [Defensiveness]

32 14 0 0 Scale 1 (S1) Hypochondriasis (Hs)

57 19 8 2 Scale 2 (S2) Depression (D)

60 26 8 4 Scale 3 (S3) Hysteria (Hy)

50 19 2 2 Scale 4 (S4) Psychopathic Deviate (Pd)

56 20 8 10 Scale 5 (S5) Masculinity-Femininity (Mf)

40 8 6 2 Scale 6 (S6) Paranoia (Pa)

48 18 0 0 Scale 7 (S7) Psychasthenia (Pt)

78 19 2 0 Scale 8 (S8) Schizophrenia (Sc)

46 17 3 8 Scale 9 (S9) Hypomania (Ma)

69 26 7 8 Scale 0 (S0) Social Introversion (Si)

641 203 56 40 Subtotals

Content Scales (CS) (15 scales)

ITMS MEAN HIGH LOW EQUAL

23 5.53/6.53 8 1 0 Anxiety (ANX)

23 3.80/6.59 5 2 8 Fears (FRS)

16 4.93/5.50 8 0 0 Obsessiveness (OBS)

33 4.79/5.86 9 0 0 Depression (DEP)

36 5.29/6.16 14 0 0 Health Concerns (HEA)

23 2.30/2.21 3 0 0 Bizarre Mentation (BIZ)

16 5.63/5.68 2 2 2 Anger (ANG)

23 9.50/8.73 11 4 2 Cynicism (CYN)

22 7.91/6.17 11 2 3 Antisocial Practices (ASP)

19 8.08/7.41 1 2 6 Type A (TPA)

24 4.25/5.16 2 2 2 Low Self-esteem (LSE)

24 7.65/7.53 6 2 1 Social Discomfort (SOD)

25 5.32/6.14 4 0 1 Family Problems (FAM)

33 7.30/8.51 10 1 1 Work Interference (WRK)

26 4.70/5.02 3 0 0 Negative Treatment (TRT)

366 97 18 26 Subtotals

Koss-Butcher Critical Items (KB) (6 scales)

ITMS MEAN HIGH LOW EQUAL

17 5 0 0 Acute Anxiety State

22 4 0 0 Depressed Suicidal Ideation

5 3 0 0 Threatened Assault

7 1 0 2 Situational Stress Due to Alcoholism

11 5 0 0 Mental Confusion

16 4 0 0 Persecutory Ideas

78 22 0 2 Subtotals

Lachar-Wrobel Critical Items (LW) (11 scales)

ITMS MEAN HIGH LOW EQUAL

11 3 0 0 Anxiety and Tension

16 4 0 0 Depression and Worry

6 3 0 0 Sleep Disturbance

15 0 0 0 Deviant Beliefs

10 5 0 0 Deviant Thinking and Experience

3 2 0 0 Substance Abuse

9 5 1 0 Antisocial Attitude

4 1 0 0 Family Conflict

4 2 0 0 Problematic Anger

6 3 1 1 Sexual Concern and Deviation

23 9 0 0 Somatic Symptoms

107 37 2 1 Subtotals

Suplementary Scales (SS) (15 scales)

ITMS MEAN HIGH LOW EQUAL

39 19 1 2 A Scale Anxiety (A)

37 8 7 5 R Scale Repression (R)

52 8 35 6 Es Scale Ego Strength (Es)

49 16 15 7 MAC-R MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale-Revised (MAC-R)

40 2 0 2 Fb Scale Backside F (Fb)

23* Listed in separate table TRIN True Response Inconsistency (TRIN)

67* Listed in separate table VRIN Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN)

28 7 5 5 O-H Overcontrolled Hostility (O-H)

25 7 11 4 Do Scale Dominance (Do)

30 8 9 8 Re Scale Social Responsibility (Re)

41 19 0 0 Mt Scale College Maladjustment (Mt)

47 8 21 12 GM Scale Masculine Gender Role (GM)

46 11 7 10 GF Scale Feminine Gender Role (GF)

46 17 0 0 PK Scale Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PK)

60 19 1 0 PS Scale Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PS)

630 149 112 61 Subtotals

___ ___ ___ ___

1822** 508 188 130 Totals

57 31 30 Number of scales represented

8.9 6.1 Mean score per scale

10.1 7.5 Mean score when equally bifurcated items added (34 total scales for Low

and Equal, .5 x 130 = 65)

* Each component of this scale consists of paired questions. Defined conflict between paired questions scores one point on scale.

** From 567 items on the MMPI-2 60 scales are constructed with a total of 1822 points. This represents an inflation of 322%.

ITMS - Number of items in each scale and maximum possible score.

MEAN - Reported mean score for each scale.

HIGH - Score resulting from choosing bifurcated question responses with the highest number of associated scales.

LOW - Score resulting from choosing bifurcated question responses with the lowest number of associated scales.

EQUAL- Items that have an equal number of scales associated with each response option.

In addition to the logical problems depicted in the TRIN and VRIN tables, there is a serious problem with the logical justification for Scale 5, the Masculinity-Femininity Scale. Scale 5 consists of 56 items with separate response listings for male and female. The only divergence between the male interpretive list and the female interpretive list occurs on items 121, 166, 209 and 268. Responses for the other 52 items are the same for both male and female interpretive lists. The only consequence of using Scale 5 would be to produce a meaningless number associated with the gender of the individual taking the MMPI-2. If the purpose of the scale were to distinguish gender based upon responses, then only items 121, 166, 209 and 268 would be needed. The remaining items would serve no purpose.

THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN

220 North Willow, Suite 222

North Little Rock, AR 72114

Telephone: (501) 374-1778

thesociologist@aol.com