Improving the assessment of Intellectual Disability (ID) within the UK Prison Service (who define ID using an IQ below 80)

摘要: The main topic of this thesis is the assessment Intellectual Disabilities (ID) within UK prison service. ID characterised by deficits in intellectual ability, such as reasoning, problem solving and understanding new or complex information (impaired intelligence), adaptive functioning (AF), which reduce individual’s ability to function independently their social environment, these begin before adulthood (Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, APA, 2013). It important note that assessments at centre are based on English system definition ID; IQ below 80. This contrast internationally recognised accepted defined an less than 70 (although criteria has been removed from most recent DSM, DSM-5 (APA, 2013)). service using 80 includes those with borderline range for determining ID, Becoming New Me (BNM) treatment programme suitable for, addition 70. comprises three empirical studies focussed improving current (as having 80) All employed quantitative methodologies participants were recruited a sex offenders. first study aimed assess psychometric properties screening measure, OASys Screening Tool (OASys ST), was developed NOMS replace Wechsler Abbreviated Scale Intelligence (WASI) measure used identify individuals Quotient (IQ) indicative (below 80). sample comprised adult male prisoners, whose data accessed complete ST. analysis probabilistic model effectiveness ST, (WASI WAIS scores) Treatment Programme (TP) data. A logistic regression also conducted and, order inform item redundancy, pairwise correlations calculated. ST found be accurate predictor whether above threshold 80; cut-off it possible classify all who scored two probability making mistake classifications 3%, rose 7% if 15% four. These could placed straight onto CORE offending without any further testing. As described thesis, historically sole criterion relied suitability (Sparrow et al., 2005). However, shown 2013), diagnosis requires both AF. There evidence poor identification offenders including offenders, Criminal Justice System (CJS) (Banes, 2002; HMIP, 2015) because there no commonly process (Beebee, 2009; 2015), since measures AF community inappropriate use incarcerated populations (Young, Boccaccini, Conroy, & Lawson, 2007). Previously, Sex Offenders (SOIDs) have disadvantage regarding programmes supports available, but they recently focus research policies, resulting creation designed specifically meet needs SOIDs (defined existing literature indicates reliably sound prisons ensuring prisoners appropriate adequate implemented line Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (2005). such, aim develop will alongside ID. stages summarised briefly follows: conceptual framework via consulting diagnostic set out 2013) reviewing literature. 11 prisoner staff took part interviews about daily life inside prison, results produce items. Originally 115 items pre-tested experts. Item response theory utilised pool. Forty-six retained scale produced 95% maximum certainty original scale. named Adaptive Functioning Assessment (AFAT). AFAT tool environment created following systematic development, explained more detail thesis. final AFAT, see valid reliable potentially rolled throughout indicated AF; Cronbach’s alphas each subscales .7 level recommended Nunnally (1978) four sub-scales correlated positively one another, well full score. Although reliability levels vary item, average inter-item correlation .91 obtained, individual exceeding limit .3 (Cronbach Meehl, 1955). good validity; scores prediction made participants’ had referred (Chi Squared test residual deviance = 32.45, p .05). showed high content 40 46 rated experts S-CVI .87 S-CVI-Average .96. In attempt interpret Latent Class Analyses (LCA) conducted; treating responses categorical other continuous variables. Both analyses revealed distinct classes individuals, expected, reflecting high, medium low groups. second LCA minor classes. interpretation class described, how varying present themselves among different classes, manifested across constituting AFAT. offers insight into highlights value assessing support (HMIP, effective informing delivery Risk Need Responsivity principles (Andrews Bonta, 2010). offer contribution knowledge (IQ 80), tool, yet receive evaluation during development itself. setting, systematically subjected validity tools direct implications service, adopted quicker available can non-psychology non-psychometric trained upon. consisted only, single testing recommended.