UK Data Archive SN 4359 - The Prison Reading Survey, 1997

Literacy and Behaviour : The Prison Reading Survey

A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

MICHAEL EDWARD RICE

Darwin College & Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge

FEBRUARY 1999 Literacy and Behaviour: The Prison Reading Survey A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Michael Edward Rice Darwin College and Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge

REVISED 28 February 2000

Summary

There is a widespread belief that literacy levels among offenders are lower than those in the general population. A frequently-associated belief is that if their reading problems were to be addressed, then offenders would abandon antisocial ways and pursue law-abiding careers. This study investigates the basis for these beliefs by assessing the prevalence of reading problems in a randomised sample of 203 adult male offenders serving custodial sentences in a representative selection of seven prisons across the range of security classifications in England and Wales. It enquires into the diversity and likely causes or exacerbating circumstances of offenders’ reading problems, using a structured interview with assessments of verbal and non-verbal ability, receptive syntax, social cognition, and self-reported behaviours associated with childhood attention-deficit and hyperactivity; and it considers the hypothesis that developmental dyslexia is a disproportionate cause of these problems. The study also reviews the development and pervasiveness of historical accounts of the association between literacy and behaviour.

Although functional literacy levels in the sample were found to be low in relation to the general population as a whole, they did not differ significantly from the general population when social disadvantage was taken into account. While many participants showed imperfect mastery of the alphabetic principle, the pattern of deficits in reading-related subskills suggested that, in a transactional explanatory model, greater importance should be attached to environmental than to constitutional causes. In a probabilistic analysis, the prevalence of developmental dyslexia in the sample appeared to be within the range likely to occur by chance. The study thus found no support for the hypotheses that developmental dyslexia might be a disproportionate cause of offenders’ reading problems or that it might constitute an independent risk for criminal conviction. III The Prison Reading Survey and its Methods

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of the survey was to assess the levels of functional literacy in the adult male prison population, to determine the extent of key sub-skill deficits in literacy, and to explore hypotheses about the causes of those deficits.

Background

Two widely-held beliefs formed the background to the survey. The first belief was that low literacy constitutes an additional impairment to the prospect of employment on release and that the risk of recidivism might be reduced by educational interventions. Research was needed to establish the extent of any problem before interventions could be planned. A related belief was that low literacy in general, and specific reading disability in particular, constitute significant risk factors for criminality, even after other risk factors are taken into account. Research was needed to assess the support for these beliefs, which have been more fully discussed in the introductory chapters.

Research Questions

The principal research questions were: • What percentage of the sample is functionally illiterate (or low-literate)? • What percentage of the sample has specific reading difficulties? • What percentage of the sample had low impulse control or attentional problems in

childhood? • What percentage of the sample has difficulties with social cognition involving theory of mind?

1 • What percentage of the sample has tic disorders? • What percentage of the sample experienced material, emotional, or educational disadvantage in childhood? • Which deficits are likely to be caused by neuropsychological abnormality, and what patterns of comorbidity link them? • Which deficits cannot plausibly be explained partly or wholly by neuropsychological abnormalities, and what alternative explanations can be proposed?

Hypotheses

A number of hypotheses and alternative hypotheses were prompted by previous studies and beliefs held by members of dyslexia advocacy groups. a) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners (two overlapping categories) differ from the rest of the sample on measures of childhood socio-economic disadvantage; alternatively, dyslexics have lower scores than the remainder. b) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of educational attainment; alternatively, both low-literates and dyslexics have lower levels of educational attainment than functionally literate members of the sample. c) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of family structure in childhood; alternatively, both groups are less likely to have grown up with both natural parents and fewer than three siblings. d) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of personal independence in adulthood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have attained independence and autonomy.

2 e) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of inter-generational socio-economic mobility; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to show evidence of inter-generational downward socio-economic mobility. f) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of peer-group assimilation in childhood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have been marginalised by their childhood peers. g) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of adult experience in employment; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have been unemployed when they were arrested, less likely to have had any job responsibility, and to have been in their most recent job for a shorter time. h) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a measure of fluid intelligence; alternatively, dyslexics do better on a measure of fluid intelligence. i) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of impediment to successful learning at school; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have had normal eyesight and hearing and better attendance records.

j) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of physical co-ordination; alternatively, dyslexics but not low-literates are less likely to be able to swim, drive motor vehicles, or play games requiring good hand-eye co- ordination. k) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a measure of alcoholism.

3 l) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of their use of writing; alternatively, both groups use writing less. m) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of the emotional climate of the childhood home or, alternatively, dyslexics have more experience of depression and less experience of attachment. n) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of parental discipline and control. o) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of literacy in the home; alternatively, both groups are lower on these measures. p) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of reading, writing, and spelling problems among first-degree relatives; alternatively, dyslexics report more familial literacy problems. q) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of childhood aggression; alternatively, dyslexics report more childhood aggression.

r) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of family criminality; alternatively, dyslexics are less likely than non-dyslexics to have convicted and imprisoned relations. s) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of depression among family members; alternatively, dyslexics report more depression.

4 t) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of discontinuity in schooling; alternatively, low-literates but not dyslexics will report greater discontinuity. u) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of school response to their difficulties in learning to read; alternatively, dyslexics will report a greater response insofar as it corresponds to higher parental socio-economic status. v) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of attachment to school; alternatively, both groups will show less attachment to school. w) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample with respect to their age at first conviction; alternatively, low literates but not dyslexics will be younger than their comparison group at first conviction. x) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of parental interest in their progress at school; alternatively, dyslexics report greater parental interest in their schooling than the non-dyslexic comparison group.

y) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of family educational achievement; alternatively, dyslexics but not low-literates will report less academic achievement than their parents or siblings. z) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of incidents in which they might have sustained closed head injury; alternatively, low-literates will report more such incidents.

5 aa) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a measure of school dropout; alternatively, both groups are more likely to drop out of school than are their normal comparisons. bb) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on their perception of a causal link between failure at (or by) their school and current imprisonment. cc) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of reckless behaviour involving motor vehicles in adulthood. dd) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample by ethnicity; alternatively, low-literates but not dyslexics are more likely to belong to minority ethnic groups.

Design

Comparisons with previous research designs

The research was planned as a sample survey of the adult male prison population of England and Wales. The design differs from most previous studies undertaken in England and Wales, where either a single establishment (Schweiger, 1997; Snowling, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin, unpublished draft) or a small convenience sample of establishments (Chester, 1995) has been studied. In its initial proposal to draw the sample from two contrasting prison clusters, it follows a survey by a team of investigators (ALBSU, 1994). However, it is relatively unusual in sampling a population of exclusively adult male prisoners. Table 3.1 (below) is the first of two in which other studies of literacy in offender populations are presented for comparison.

6 Table 3.1 Some Studies of Literacy in Offender Populations.

JURISDICTION AGE SEX STUDY

Australia Adults Males

Females Both sexes Black, 1990; Black, Rouse, & Wickert, 1990 Juveniles Males Females Both sexes Cairney, Lowe, McKenzie, & Petrakis, 1993 All ages Males Females Both sexes England & Adults Males Surrey Probation Service, 1995 Wales Females Both sexes Juveniles Males Jarratt, 1997; Schweiger, 1997; Snowling, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin Females Both sexes All ages Males Chester, 1995 Females Both sexes ALBSU, 1994 Germany Adults Males Weinschenk & Foitzik, 1967 Females Weinschenk & Sambach, 1970 Both sexes Juveniles Males Weinschenk & Dildey, 1970 Females Both sexes All ages Males Females Both sexes Sweden Adults Males Females Both sexes Juveniles Males Females Both sexes All ages Males Alm & Andersson, 1995 Females Jensen, Lindgren, Wirsen-Meurling, Ingvar, & Levander, in press Both sexes

7 / . . . . . Table 3.1 (continued)

JURISDICTION AGE SEX STUDY U S A Adults Males Dowling, 1991; Lundak, 1988; Rance-Roney, 1994; Read & Ruyter, 1985; Weisel, 1987 Females Fink, 1991 Both sexes Bell, Conard, Gazze, Greenwood, Lutz, & Suppa, 1983; Haigler, Harlow, O'Connor, & Campbell, 1994; Kender, Greenwood, & Conard, 1985 Juveniles Males Broder, Dunivant, Smith, & Sutton, 1981; Dunivant, 1982; Dunivant, 1984; Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986; Sternig-Babcock, 1987 Females Both sexes Pasternack & Lyon, 1982; Bologna, 1986; Kolmetz, 1982; Pena, 1986; Zimmerman, Rich, Keilitz, & Broder, 1981 All ages Males Females Both sexes

Note: Studies cited in italics have not been formally published.

It is impossible to compile a definitive list of studies in this field, as not every study is listed in an academic database. The table includes only those reports that have proved helpful in planning or discussing the methods of the present investigation.

Demographic variables

It is difficult to match epidemiological studies in the general and prison populations on standard demographic and penal variables, as can be seen in Table 3.2 below.

8 Table 3.2 Epidemiological Studies of Reading and Reading Disabilities in the Adult General and Offender Populations.

N AGE SEX SES ETH EDN PEN GENERAL POPULATION Functional Literacy Kirsch (1993) 26,091 16-65+ m/f • • • n/a Ekinsmyth (1994) 1,632 21 m/f • - • n/a Wickert (1995) 1,496 18-55+ m/f • • • n/a Bynner (1997) 1,714 37 m/f • • • n/a Carey (1997) 3,811 16-65 m/f • • • n/a

Learning deficiencies No studies known Dyslexia No studies known

OFFENDER POPULATIONS Functional Literacy Black (1990) 192 18-65+ m/f • • • - ALBSU (1994) 416 16+ m/f - - - - Haigler (1994) 1,147 16-65+ m/f • • • •

Learning deficiencies Bell (1983) 786 15-65 m/f • • • •

Dyslexia Alm (1995) 61 18-67 m - - • - Chester (1995) 100 - m - • • • Surrey (1995) 87 - m - - - - Morgan (1996) 150 See note m/f - - • - Schweiger (1997) 55 15-21 m • - - - Jensen (in press) 63 19-57 m/f - - - -

Abbreviations and Symbols: N = number of subjects; SES = assessment of subjects' socio- economic status; ETH = assessment of subjects' ethnic origin; EDN = assessment of subjects' educational background; PEN = record of subjects' security categorisation and current offence; • = data collected; n/a = not applicable.

Note: Morgan (1996) gives the mean age of his respondents as 28.87 years.

9 Literacy levels vary by age group and country (Carey, Low, & Hansbro, 1997) , with marked variations at the lowest level of proficiency in the 16-25 age group between Great Britain (17%), Sweden (4%), and the United States (24%). This finding alone invalidates international comparisons between unadjusted literacy rates in offending populations.

In England and Wales, adult literacy levels have been found to vary according to the demographic variables of age, sex, and socio-economic class (Carey et al., 1997) . The particular importance of family background factors has been emphasised (Bynner & Steedman, 1995) . The present investigation was designed to permit statistical control of these and other extraneous variables. In this respect, it resembles the studies by Bell et al. (1983), Haigler et al. (1994) , and Jensen, Lindgren, Wirsen-Meurling, Ingvar, & Levander (in press) .

An age effect, showing marked improvements in literacy between the ages of fifteen and twenty-six, has been found in a large cohort study (Rodgers, 1986) . However, comparisons with studies by Ekinsmyth & Bynner (1994) and Bynner & Parsons (1997) suggest that in reading attainment there might also be a cohort effect, for which various explanations have been proposed, including the increase in television viewing and changing attitudes and practices in the teaching of reading.

In addition to the reasons for describing the age-groups constituting the sample, there was a reason for choosing adult rather than juvenile offenders as the subject of this study. Previous studies of dyslexia, or specific reading retardation, or learning disabilities, among juvenile offenders have failed to differentiate childhood-onset from adolescent- onset offenders. In doing so, they aggregate deviant and normative offenders, although the former group is more closely associated with life-course-persistent criminality (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996) . Because the present study was intended to address causal hypotheses linking reading problems with deviance, it was limited to an adult sample.

10 Because most of the prison population is male, this study looked only at male offenders. That difference imposes caution when comparisons are made with the general population, as sex ratios differ in various domains including levels of reading attainment. Differences between boys and girls in ordinary reading attainment have been observed in primary education (Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1988) , but they are unstable over time (Carey et al., 1997) . Sex differences have also been reported in the prevalence of specific reading retardation (Share, McGee, McKenzie, Williams, & Silva, 1987) , and especially where there is a pattern of familial association (Wolff & Melngailis, 1994) . Although a large-scale epidemiological study found no imbalance in the sex ratio for reading disability (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990) , it found sex differences in the functional organisation of the brain for phonological processing (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Pugh, Constable, Skudlarski, Fulbright et al., 1995) , and gender differences have been reported in the severity of impairment (Feldman, Levin, Fleischmann, Jallad, Kusch, Gross-Glenn et al., 1995) . The base rates of impairment cannot be estimated unless these issues are considered, but this might be the first study of an offending population to consider them.

The socio-economic profile of the prison population in England and Wales differs from that of the general population, in that manual workers are represented at levels greater than chance (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) . However, the degree of difference is variable, and likely to be less at an open prison, where white-collar offenders may form a significant sub-group, than at a high-security prison, where a larger sub-group is imprisoned for crimes of violence.

Because income and occupation are also predictive of reading attainment (Carey et al., 1997) , in order to determine whether reading levels are an independent risk factor for criminality, data from both the prison population and the general population must be stratified by social-economic group. This investigation follows Bell et al. (1983) , Haigler et al. (1994) , and Jensen et al. (in press) in recording such details. Data about the

11 respondent's most recent occupation and the breadwinner's occupation in his childhood home were collected, as well as data on family size and structure, basic home amenities, and whether the childhood home was rented or owner-occupied. In these respects, this study goes further than previous investigations of dyslexia in prisons.

The prisons from which the sample was drawn were as representative of the estate as a small selection could be, in the hope of extending the validity the study to the wider adult male prison establishment. Unlike the other English studies included in Table 3.1, this study follows ALBSU (1994) in that aim.

No study has suggested that there might be differential prevalence rates of dyslexia according to ethnicity, although different rates of difficulty have been observed between users of alphabetic and non-alphabetic writing systems. However, membership of a minority ethnic group may be associated with economic disadvantage and cultural differences in the use of literacy in the home (Heath, 1983; Stubbs, 1980) . This study follows Bell et al. (1983) and Haigler et al. (1994) in describing the ethnicity of respondents. In this, it differs from (ALBSU, 1994) survey, which disregards ethnicity, while going further than Carey et al. (1997) , who distinguish only between mother- tongue and second-language speakers of English, despite the implications of interactions between economic disadvantage and ethnicity for literacy policy.

The possibility of boosting the sub-sample of ethnic minority participants was considered but rejected. If the ethnic minority response rate proved equal to that of the majority group, the expected number would be sufficiently large for any significant differences to appear. If, on the other hand, it was lower, then, because their diffidence about low literacy would be the likeliest reason for potential participants to decline to take part, the sample would still be subject to bias, no matter how much it was boosted.

12 Like other studies of prisoner literacy, this investigation sought to exclude potential participants identified by prison staff as mentally ill. Because there is evidence that some mental illness is causally linked to dyslexia (Horrobin, Glen, & Hudson, 1995; Richardson, 1994; Stein, 1994) , exclusions might have biased the findings by excluding potential participants in this way, but findings from an epidemiological survey (Williams & McGee, 1995) suggest that the effects of such an omission are negligible.

Penal system variables

Even within the same jurisdiction, local variations and change over time in penal system variables such as prosecution policy, conviction rate, sentencing policy, and classification and allocation policy, all make comparisons difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, it was important to establish whether there were any significant relationships between prisoner classification and neuropsychological or other deficits.

Taking into account the possibility of variation in security classification as a function of impairments in social cognition or stress tolerance, this study was designed to test hypotheses involving penal system variables. In this, it goes beyond previous studies of adult prisoner literacy in England and Wales.

However, variables such as age of first contact with the police, age at first conviction, and whether or not the index offence involves violence, have predictive value in relation to reading ability. In view of the findings, albeit inconsistent, associating differences in literacy with type of offence (Gainsley, 1984; Hollin & Wheeler, 1982; Lewis, Shanok, Balla, & Bard, 1980; Spellacy, 1978) , this study was designed to investigate competing hypotheses about a relationship between reading ability and violent offending.

It was hypothesised that impairments in social cognition might characterise men imprisoned for sexual offences. Such impairments must be distinguished from the more commonly-observed cognitive distortions of sex offenders, reviewed by Ward, Hudson,

13 Johnston, & Marshall (1997) , as it has been observed that some sex offenders have marked impairments in their understanding of figurative language (A cognitive skills tutor, personal communication). This present investigation differs from previous studies of prisoner literacy by testing this hypothesis.

Within the limits imposed by time and cost, it was necessary to maximise the sample size in the hope of creating sufficiently large subgroups for the analyses to produce statistically significant findings. On the basis of a minimum of five completed interviews each working week, a target of 225 interviews was set before the fieldwork began. In the event, the epidemiological sample reached 203. Fifteen interviews were completed in the most productive week, four in the least productive week. With the addition of the research sample of 17, the total reached 220. Table 3.2 (above) offers a comparison with the sample size of selected studies in the field.

Research studies are inevitably defined by the skills and interests of those who undertake them. The research orientation of previous investigations is indicated in Table 3.3 (below).

14 Table 3.3 Selected Studies of Reading in Offender Populations. Team studies Authors Research Orientation LITERACY Black et al. (1990) Education ALBSU (1994) Education Haigler et al. (1994) Social Science, Education DYSLEXIA Alm & Andersson (1995) Social Science Jensen et al. (in press) Psychology Surrey Probation Service Probation, Education (1995) OTHER Bell et al. (1983) Psychology, Education Single-investigator studies

LITERACY None

DYSLEXIA Chester (1995) Social Science Morgan (1996) Probation Schweiger (1997) Social Science

OTHER None

Instrumentation

The following account of research instrumentation has been drawn only from previous epidemiological studies of reading and reading problems in offender populations.

Only two of the studies (Black et al., 1990; Haigler et al., 1994) set out to investigate functional literacy by using a selection of test items of graded difficulty taken from everyday life, such as newspaper articles, instruction sheets, and timetables. Both studies drew on the theoretical and practical approach adopted by Kirsch & Jungeblut (1986) , and each was related to a study of functional literacy in the general population, by Wickert &

Kevin (1995) in Australia and by Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad (1993) in the USA. A similar form of test, developed for the Basic Skills Agency, has been used in two studies

15 of functional literacy in British birth cohorts, namely those by Ekinsmyth & Bynner (1994) and by Bynner & Parsons (1997) .

To assess specific learning difficulties, Bell et al. (1983) and Schweiger (1997) used screening tests. Chester (1995) and Morgan (1996) used screening questionnaires, supplemented by psychometric tests taken from the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (Nicolson & Fawcett, 1995) in the former case and by the Bangor Dyslexia Test (Miles, 1982) in the latter. The problems arising from unsupplemented use of a screening test are discussed below.

A more diagnostic approach was adopted by Surrey Probation Service (1995) , which combined the Vernon Graded Word Spelling test with the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1956) and the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton & Pintilie, 1982).

The only investigation to attempt a full diagnosis of dyslexia was the study by Jensen et al. (in press) , which employed an extensive battery of psychometric tests for this purpose.

Again, only Jensen et al. (in press) assessed executive functions and for this purpose, too, a psychometric test battery was employed.

None of the previous studies sought to investigate social cognition as a separate area of functioning.

Only Jensen et al. (in press) assessed participants for psychopathy, and for this they used the SCID (Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon, & First, 1992) . Fluid intelligence was assessed with the WAIS-R tests by Bell et al. (1983) , with the Raven

SPM (Raven, 1956) by Surrey Probation Service (1995) , and with the Swedish Standard Intelligence Battery by Jensen et al. (in press) .

16 For crystalline intelligence, both Bell et al. (1983) and Jensen et al. (in press) employed WAIS-R sub-tests while Surrey Probation Service (1995) used the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn et al., 1982).

Bell et al. (1983) and Jensen et al. (in press) collected social background data in structured interviews. They and Chester (1995) , Morgan (1996) , and Jarratt (1997) also collected data on the educational history of each participant. In none of these studies was it possible to obtain information other than by the participant's self-report.

The total time taken to assess, interview, and perhaps also to check the prison records of each participant varied from less than half an hour (Chester, 1995) to more than ten hours (Bell et al., 1983) . In Jensen's study, the total for each participant was four and a half hours.

Design limitations

The limitations of this design are to some extent a by-product of the gap between its aims and the resources available to implement them. Although the cross-sectional method is appropriate for a survey, it cannot resolve the problem of explaining behaviours that are the result of change over time. The constraints imposed by time and available funding could have prompted a study in depth with corresponding sharpness of focus. Alternatively, a decision could have been taken to make the greatest use of an opportunity to go into prisons by extending the range of the enquiry at the expense of depth and focus. The advice received on this dilemma was divided. In fact, a decision was made to pursue several simultaneous investigations, not least because however much sense a single line of enquiry makes in psychology it makes little sense in social science. However, the use of a single investigator for a multi-disciplinary enterprise was a further limitation.

Reliance upon a single informant creates additional difficulties. These problems are exacerbated when informants' memories are impaired by substance abuse or by emotional

17 or physical trauma. Reservations about informant reliability were a sufficient reason for excluding some questions from the interview schedule. They impose caveats about the interpretation of answers to some of the questions that were included.

The instrumentation chosen for the survey was determined in part by time constraints and in part by the investigator's lack of appropriate qualifications. The unstandardised, experimental nature of some of the instruments used raises important doubts about their validity, especially in the case of the Author Recognition Checklist. Other issues relating to test-retest reliability and inter-rater consistency could not be addressed. All of these problems urge caution on the interpretation of the findings.

The sample

Introduction

The universe for this investigation is the adult male prison population of England and Wales. It is a population defined initially by jurisdiction. However, because of changes over time in both legislation and sentencing policy, apart from local variations known to exist between one crown court and another, the prison population (although defined by the jurisdiction) is not the expression of a single penal policy. In practice, the implied differences are immaterial for present purposes. Highly material, however, are the marked demographic differences between the prison population and the general population. Not only with respect to age and sex, but also with respect to socio-economic status and ethnicity, general population data require stratification before meaningful comparisons can be made with the prison population. These comparisons are tabulated in Chapter IV.

18 The population

The population sampled for the epidemiological study comprised the convicted adult males serving custodial sentences in seven prisons selected to represent all security classifications.

Selection constraints

No claim is made for the sample's representativeness. It has been debated whether criminality is evenly distributed throughout the population or whether it is concentrated in the groups disproportionately represented in the prison population (Box, 1981; Taylor, Walton, & Young, 1973) . But whether or not anti-social personality is evenly distributed, criminality as it is operationalised by the penal system is incontestably represented disproportionately in various social groups whose home localities, in turn, are unevenly dispersed geographically (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) . While the siting of the 120 or so prisons in the estate attempts to accommodate this dispersion, both the historically determined locations of old county gaols that have since become local prisons and the social and financial constraints on the siting of new prisons have led to a situation in which there is limited comparability even between prisons of the same security category serving the same regional population. Thus no prison is a microcosm of the penal estate. It follows that no survey of a single prison population is likely to have ecological validity and that findings from a survey of several prisons are to some degree inapplicable to any one prison. However, it is difficult to determine the number of prisons that would constitute a sufficient sample of the entire estate, as can be seen by the different ways in which other investigators have addressed the problem. On the ground that no two prisons were alike in intake and regime, the 1991 National Prison Survey (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) took a ten per cent sample from each of the establishments in the prison estate, ninety-seven of which housed adult males. A study of mentally disordered prisoners (Gunn, Maden, &

Swinton, 1991) drew its adult male sample from seventeen prisons. A study of suicide and self-injury in male prisons (Liebling & Krarup, 1993) included sixteen prisons in its

19 epidemiological study and a further four prisons in its intensive study. A review of regimes in prison service establishments (HMCIP, 1993) drew its sample from sixty-four establishments, with special emphasis on the south-west of England.

Thus, if representativeness requires both a proportionately large number of prisons to be sampled and a relatively large sample size, the present study is unlikely to be fully representative. However, its findings may be useful for policy-makers in indicating a range of values for its measures, in addition to any usefulness it may have in articulating and refining hypotheses for future research. Since, on many variables, within-prison variance proved to be greater than between-prison variance, the need to derive the present sample from a larger quota of men in a smaller selection of prisons might be justified both pragmatically and theoretically.

Originally, the plan was to draw the sample from two contrasting prison clusters. The perceived advantage of this plan was that it would allow the survey to include a larger and more representative number of establishments than are comprised in a single cluster and also indicate whether there were significant regional differences over and above the differences that might be expected between individual prisons.

Although guided by theoretical considerations, the selection of prisons in this survey was pragmatic. It was decided to begin with the East Anglian cluster for three reasons: its proximity to Cambridge, personal acquaintance with an intermediary through whom access was negotiated, and the prospect of a good rapport between the investigator and his fellow East Anglians and Londoners, who comprised the majority of the prisoners there.

Shortly after the fieldwork began it became clear that, even when planning two months or more ahead, the investigator would have insufficient time to negotiate access to the number of establishments originally envisaged. The decision to continue with the East

20 Anglian cluster of prisons nevertheless presented an opportunity to compare two local and two category C training prisons, to present findings of interest and use to a single education provider (in this case, Norwich City College), and possibly to avoid longer delays in negotiating access, while deferring a decision about applications to prisons outside this cluster. The sample fraction was accordingly doubled. In the longer run, this change produced other benefits. Even in the two prisons where duration of the survey was brief, there was enough time for the investigator to develop good working relations with uniformed staff and to become a familiar and thus unthreatening sight to potential participants. It also offered a better chance to observe prison life while the investigator was left to his own devices on the wing.

Following advice when, several weeks after application was made, the category B training prison in East Anglia refused access because of staff shortages, an application was made to HMP Garth, a large category B establishment in Lancashire with a catchment area extending from Shropshire to Cumbria and including Liverpool and part of Greater Manchester. This was an ideal contrast to the London and East Anglian catchment area served by the first five prisons in the sample. Although the application for access to HMP Full Sutton, the seventh and last prison in the sample, was also determined by practical rather than theoretical considerations, it reinforced the regional contrast. Like all dispersal prisons, HMP Full Sutton serves the whole establishment, but most of the prisoners interviewed there originated from the north of England.

As a result, the prisons in this necessarily restricted sample contain a population drawn from a variety of residential localities. It is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of the way in which the sample was drawn that differences attributable to residential localities may be inseparable from differences attributable to security classification. This problem, and other sources of bias, will be discussed more fully in Chapter IV.

21 In the first prison, a simple random sample was drawn. It was not immediately clear that this would result in differential representation between the four wings, one of which was given over to the enhanced regime. That form of sampling would have been undesirable at HMP Norwich, where each wing contained a distinct sub-population. From HMP Norwich onwards, a stratified random sample was drawn wing by wing and, where possible, by security classification as well.

Of a total of 245 prisoners invited to take part in the survey, 203 agreed to participate. The response rate varied from one prison to another. The likely factors accounting for this variation included the way in which men were invited to participate, the perceived value of the alternatives offered by the regime, and a range of personal factors.

With those who agreed to take part, it was possible to complete every interview except two. One interview was curtailed when the participant needed to discuss a pressing personal matter, but not before it was possible to determine his functional literacy and whether he had any specific reading problems. A second interview was abridged because of the elderly participant's medical condition, which limited the commitment that could fairly be asked of him. All other interviews were completed, even if they required two sessions.

Refusals

Men declined to take part for various reasons, some of which were explicit while others had to be inferred. The available information has been tabulated in an attempt to estimate the extent to which the refusal rate may have biased the findings and in which direction. Ideally, the sample should have been assessed for its representativeness by comparison with data for the current population in each prison. This was not possible. In a larger study, it would have been desirable to compare men who declined to participate with their randomly-selected substitutes, but with these numbers it is unlikely that any differences would have have reached statistical significance. As a compromise, a

22 comparison was made between the participants and men who declined to take part on measures of age, current offence and, where possible, ethnicity. The absence of significant differences on any of these measures does not guarantee similarity on any other measures. The critical determinant of a man's willingness to participate might have been his perceived reading competence. Unfortunately, when objective assessments of reading competence were sought, many prison education departments proved to have incomplete records. Where prison assessments could be compared with those made in the course of the study, there was little correspondence.

The available information on non-participants is presented in Appendix IV.

The investigative instruments

Introduction

Although many of the investigative instruments developed for use with children can be employed in epidemiological as well as classroom or clinic settings, there are few instruments obviously suitable for use in epidemiological surveys of adults. With the instruments used in this survey, it was impossible to satisfy demanding criteria of standardisation and validation, given an over-riding need to ensure that instruments used with wary adults should have face validity. Nor was it always possible to find tests allowing comparison with the general population. Instead, tests permitting comparison only among members of the sample were employed. With these, it was possible to determine the direction but not necessarily the degree of difference between groups. There were further unresolved problems of test-retest reliability, and not least the problem of day-on-day variation in the performance levels of individual participants, although in group comparisons these variations might cancel one another out. There was an advantage in brevity and breadth of coverage over depth and narrowness, since the prevalence of specific cognitive dysfunctions in the adult prison population is a relatively unexplored issue and so requires an exploratory study before specific questions are addressed in detail.

23 Functional literacy

The test used to assess functional literacy was the Reading Tasks module of a battery of materials for assessing competence in basic skills (Basic Skills Agency, 1992) . These materials were prepared by Cambridge Training and Development Ltd as part of the Basic Skills Accreditation Initiative, a project which ran from 1988 until 1991 and was jointly funded by the Department of Education and Science and the Employment Department. The materials were designed to provide an initial assessment procedure for use in various contexts, including prisons.

Preparatory work for the Reading Tasks began in the 1970s, when functional approaches to literacy were being debated in the UK. ALRA, a forerunner of the Basic Skills Agency, was influenced by this debate. Useful sources for comparison outside the UK are Kirsch & Jungeblut (1986) , Kirsch et al. (1993) , and Wickert & Kevin (1995) . The development of literacy assessment batteries in the United Kingdom appears to have been less scientific than ideological. It is not simply that, drawing on practitioner knowledge, the assessments were criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced, but that the early assessment batteries were not tested in order to ensure an orderly progression from simple to more difficult items (Martin Good, personal communication).

Regrettably, the present study was under way before details became available of the Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) now being undertaken on behalf of the US National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. However, component skills not tested by the BSA reading tasks are assessed in the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (see below). These skills include spelling, word recognition, phonemic analysis, rapid automatised naming, and short-term memory (John Strucker, personal communication). By combining modules from the BSA and DAST batteries, a reasonably comprehensive skills assessment can be performed.

24 The practical requirements determining the choice of test were, first, that it should permit comparison between the prison sample and a sample of the general population. Since a study of the 1970 birth cohort (Ekinsmyth & Bynner, 1994) had used the same approach with similar Basic Skills Agency reading tasks, and the mean age of the cohort at testing was not too remote from the anticipated mean age of the sample in the present study, the Reading Tasks appeared to be an apt choice. Subsequent publication of a literacy assessment of the 1958 birth cohort (Bynner & Parsons, 1997) , which had used an updated and improved version of the Basic Skills Agency reading tasks, appeared to offer the possibility of general population comparison over a wider age range. (Interpretational problems are discussed in Chapter IV.)

It was not until the fieldwork for the present study was nearly completed that a major survey of adult literacy in Great Britain was published (Carey et al., 1997) . This study, part of the International Adult Literacy Survey (see also OECD, 1995) , assessed nearly four thousand adults, using a Balanced Incomplete Block (BIB) design like that used in the study of US prison literacy (Haigler et al., 1994) where it is more fully described. Since the administration procedure, testing each participant on only a selection from the battery and varying the order of items in response booklets (known as BIB-spiralling), requires a larger sample than was feasible in the present study, the technique could not have been employed here. However, if the IALS task battery could have been adapted for use in a smaller survey, it might have permitted more extensive general population comparisons than can be made with the cohort studies.

A second requirement was that the test should have face validity. Although nearly every participant accepted without question the relevance of interview and assessment modules to a study of reading and reading problems, it seemed critically important to affirm the purpose of the survey in the early stages of the session. The derivation of the reading tasks from everyday, adult, civilian life satisfied this requirement.

25 A third and related requirement was that the test should be free from any negative association with classroom assignments, lest memories of school failure lowered the participant's motivation or led him to abort the interview. The reading tasks came as close as possible to satisfying this requirement.

It was also important that the assessment could be conducted without depressing poor readers. The reading tasks satisfied this criterion, too.

There were eleven reading tasks, some of which had alternatives of more or less equivalent difficulty. They consisted of prose passages (including a simple poster, a recipe, and a broadsheet newspaper report) and graphical items (including a town map and a set of instructions for using a washing machine). The participant was asked to read the test passage silently and then to answer two or three questions about it. He was permitted to refer to the passage while answering. At lower levels, the questions required selection of factual details. Only on the eleventh task was the participant asked to make inferences from what he had read or to detach his own views from those of the writer.

There was a low ceiling to the attainment level required by the reading tasks, which even in a prison sample created a skewed distribution. The tasks assessed the ability to read small print more than they seemed to test vocabulary, and one or two participants had to be given the benefit of the doubt because, even when wearing their reading glasses, they could not discern the small print in a classified directory facsimile (R6). A few questions could have been worded more clearly (R9.2), depended on questionable assumptions (R2A.1), or should have been discarded as guessable (R5.2), but these minor flaws had no effect on the assignment to attainment levels.

Specific reading difficulties

In order to assess the possibility that participants in the Survey might be dyslexic, the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (Nicolson & Fawcett, 1995) was used. The theoretical

26 background to the DAST is outlined in a study establishing the feasibility of a computer- based screening test as the first stage of a two-stage diagnostic procedure for adult dyslexics (Nicolson, Fawcett, & Miles, 1993) .

The aims of the original proposal for a computer-mediated test procedure had been to avoid dependence on taught skills and to extend the range of tests beyond phonological processing to a more fundamental level of information-processing. In the event, development of the computer-mediated test was held up by withdrawal of Department of Employment funding, and the battery was developed as a pencil-and-paper exercise with some dependence upon taught skills.

The DAST is a battery of ten sub-tests for the assessment of rapid automatised naming, word recognition, postural stability, phonemic segmentation, spelling, verbal working memory, de-coding, fine motor co-ordination and accuracy in writing, verbal fluency, and semantic fluency. On some of the sub-tests, notably rapid automatised naming, timed word recognition (at speed), and the de-coding of non-words embedded in an otherwise normal passage, developmental dyslexics would be expected to obtain poor scores as their problems are defined by such deficits. In addition, developmental dyslexics might be expected to obtain poor scores on the verbal working memory task, in line with many empirical findings. On the semantic fluency tasks they might be expected to obtain scores that were markedly superior to participants' scores for verbal (or alphabetic) fluency. The written tasks made it possible to record their choice of writing hand and to make a rudimentary classification of the quality of their handwriting as a simple measure of fine- motor skill.

Theoretical difficulties relating to the concept of dyslexia have been reviewed in an earlier chapter. Among these difficulties is the etiological significance to be attached to patterns of variance in skill deficits. Discussion of both this issue and the question of specificity in reading disability will be resumed in the next chapter.

27 Like any other screening test, the DAST represents the first stage of a two-stage diagnostic process. Since the rationale for a screening test is that both dyslexic and garden-variety poor readers congregate at the lower end of a continuum of reading ability, placement of the cut-off score is determined by the requirement to exclude as few genuine cases as possible-or, in other words, to minimise the number of false negatives-at the primary stage, without over-burdening the secondary stage with a large percentage of true negatives (see Table 3.5 below).

Table 3.5 Allocation of Results on a Screening Test.

A CTUAL

MM Positive Negative

MMPositive True False P Positive Positive R E D I MMNegative False True C Negative T Negative E D

Nevertheless, a screening test must by definition be over-inclusive, provisionally identifying as genuine both cases and non-cases - or true and false positives. It is thus axiomatic that not everyone whose 'risk' score-or 'At-Risk Quotient'-rises above the imposed threshold of a screening test will prove at the second stage of assessment to be a developmental dyslexic. It is also within the theoretical considerations that the aggregate score of a well-compensated 'residual' dyslexic may fall below the threshold for the battery but indicate 'risk' on some of the component tests. The DAST is thus useful both as a screening test and as a diagnostic battery for investigating strengths and weaknesses in reading and reading-related sub-skills, even without a second-stage assessment to

28 investigate the probable etiology of any weaknesses. However, it cannot be used on its own to reach a definitive view of the cause of the weaknesses it identifies.

Clearly, a single definitive diagnostic assessment would have been preferable, but a single-stage full assessment employing an instrument such as the WAIS-R would have been outside the investigator's competence, even if time and money had been available for it. An even more exhaustive assessment battery, such as that used by Jensen et al. (in press) , was out of the question. Moreover, the WAIS-R might have posed equal difficulty with respect to the causal hypotheses. It has been argued that DSM-IIIR categories cannot reliably be distinguished on the basis of WISC subtest profiles (Rispens, Swaab, van den Oord, Cohen-Kettinis, van Engeland, & van Yperen, 1997) , and the same logic applies to the adult version of the Wechsler test battery.

A simple, and feasible, alternative would have been to use a symptom checklist. The usefulness of self-report checklists in epidemiological studies has been confirmed (Boyle, Offord, Racine, Szatmari, Sanford, & Fleming, 1997) . The US National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center (1996) Checklist schedules many characteristic dyslexic behaviours but cautions that 'most adults exhibit or have exhibited some of these characteristics'. The checklist recommended by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation (Vinegrad, 1994) is more specific and claims discriminant validity but, although useful as a filter for psychometric testing, it offers none of the objective measures of reading and reading-related skills that are possible with the DAST.

A further reason for adopting the DAST was the possibility that, as data are accumulated, reliable general population norms will become available.

In practice, the DAST was simple to administer. Although it was devised to screen willing referrals and self-referrals, it stood up well to the more robust demands of epidemiological screening. Even in the spelling test, where a perfunctory performance

29 might have been anticipated, it sustained a high level of motivation. For the balance test, nobody objected to wearing the welders' goggles that served as a blindfold, and no interview room proved too small for the participant to stand up and to take the few paces that this test might have required.

As would be expected in prison research, some of the assessments took place against a background of ambient noise, particularly the closing of iron gates and the rattling of keys. Accordingly, the phonemic discrimination was sometimes difficult to score, and the participant's concentration was occasionally disturbed as he tried to concentrate on the short-term verbal memory task. Where the background noise became too loud, the order of sub-tests was re-arranged. There was no indication that this problem or its solution had a significant effect on the scores.

There were particular problems in testing those with limited or no reading skills and those who spoke English as a second language. The non-readers were tested on rapid automatised naming, balance, verbal short-term memory, and semantic fluency, while the poor readers were assessed on these tests and also, where possible, on the phonemic segmentation and verbal fluency tests. Some of the speakers of English as a second language were able to attempt all of the tests and to obtain scores in the normal range. Some obtained 'at-risk' scores because they had neither mastered English phonology nor developed complete automaticity in reading and writing English. Others were able to attempt only a few of the tests, on which they nevertheless obtained normal scores. Without exception, speakers of English as a second-language took longer to complete the rapid naming task in their mother-tongue than they did in English.

It was unfortunately not possible to record all aspects of test performance. Misreadings in the one minute word-recognition task seemed worth analysing. The vocabulary generated in the verbal fluency and semantic fluency tasks showed up interesting qualitative differences between the vocabularies of men scoring at the same levels. Although a

30 verbatim record of parts of the verbal fluency task was taken occasionally, the investigator's rapid longhand was nevertheless too slow to capture much on paper. There were interesting differences between the orderly and haphazard recall of the names of animals in the semantic fluency task, suggesting variation in lexical organisation and content, as well as variation in ease of access, which might have correlated with other measures if they could have been recorded. It is unlikely that permission to make tape recordings would have been granted at Garth or Full Sutton, even for this purpose, but recordings might be the basis of a useful study in a low-security prison.

Fluid and crystalline intelligence

The participants' intelligence was assessed principally in order to test the advocacy-group belief that among people with reading disabilities there is a reserve of unexploited ability. By determining whether poor readers with relatively high fluid intelligence scores came disproportionately from the higher socio-economic classes, it was also possible to assess support for the hypothesis that reading disability plays a causal role in the development of criminality.

For a test of fluid ability, a selection was made from Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1956) . There are sixty matrices in five sets of twelve, each set employing a different principle of variation which it tests at progressive levels of difficulty. The principles themselves are also arranged in ascending order of difficulty. The first item in any set is much easier than the last item in the previous set. In each set there is a matrix of two or three vertical and horizontal rows of patterns, but the last item of the last row is omitted. Printed below is a multiple-choice display including the item needed to complete the matrix, which the subject has to identify, usually by inductive reasoning. The correct item meets criteria established by both the horizontal and the vertical sequences, so that a solution reached horizontally can be cross-checked vertically and vice versa.

31 The validity of the SPM is well-attested, and they are particularly useful in assessing disadvantaged people whose real ability may not be reflected in their attainments (Kline, 1993) .

The SPM offer internally consistent scales, which may imply a degree of narrowness that compromises validity. On the other hand, the SPM correlate substantially with other intelligence tests, particularly with tests of fluid ability. Their predictive validity for educational achievement is lower than that offered by tests of crystalline intelligence, because the latter are more closely linked to cultural factors influencing educational success (Kline, 1993) . This effect is differential across the range of socio-economic classes, and more marked at the lower end from which the majority of the prison population derive.

However, the norms may be unreliable, jeopardising comparisons between individuals and sub-populations (Kline, 1993) . Furthermore, the scores have been found to underestimate subjects with little or no previous experience of testing. Nevertheless, the SPM appear to be the most suitable test for subjects unlikely to do well on tests of crystalline ability. There was thus no reason to suppose that they would be unreliable in differentiating the mean fluid ability levels of sub-groups in the present study.

Raven's matrices were designed to be used as a group test, although they can be administered individually, as was done in this study. Two practical considerations influenced that way in which the matrices were used. The first was the limited available time. It was impossible to allocate as much as the forty-five minutes required for all sixty items to be completed, and neither was it necessary, as only internal comparisons were required. (Because the difficulty of the matrices is progressive, it is possible to map a selection of the items on to the complete set, giving an estimate of the minimum percentile levels that could have been reached if every item had been administered. This procedure

32 will be discussed in the next chapter.) It was therefore decided to select twenty-five of the matrices for use in the present study.

The second practical consideration was the expected ability range of the prison sample. In the light of discussions of the intelligence of offenders by Hirschi & Hindelang (1977) and Farrington (1994) , it seemed prudent to make a selection that would create a greater dispersion at the low end of the ability range. Guided by the expected score compositions at various ability levels presented by Raven, Court, & Raven (1992, Table SPM II, p. 38), the following items were chosen:

Table 3.6 A Short Form of Raven’s SPM.

SET TOTAL RAVEN SPM ITEM NUMBERS ITEMS

A 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 B 6 2 4 5 7 9 12 C 5 1 3 5 7 9 D 4 + 1 1 2 6 8 12 E 1 + 4 4 5 8 10 12

25 + 5

All subjects were asked to attempt the basic selection of twenty-five items. The first subject to be assessed made twenty-five correct responses. To lessen the chance of a ceiling effect, five difficult items (italicised in Table 3.6) were added. From the second interview onwards, any subject who made the correct response to B12 and E4 was also invited to attempt the additional items.

In practice, the selection was easy enough to sustain the morale of less able subjects while containing enough variation in difficulty for the investigator to observe longer latencies in the more difficult items. However, a greater dispersion would have been obtained if fewer

33 items had been included from set A and correspondingly more items included from sets B, C and D.

The approximate durations of the twenty-five item test were recorded with a wristwatch.

It was desirable to measure relative levels of crystalline ability in order to assess aspects of reading ability and practice that were not covered by the assessments for functional literacy and specific reading difficulty. In addition, correlation was expected with other indicators of reading motivation and experience.

The obvious choice for a measure of verbal ability would have been the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale developed for use with the SPM. However, this Scale is administered as a pencil-and paper multiple-choice exercise, easily associated with school tasks, and thus likely to alienate some participants. Moreover, it relies on a higher level of decoding ability could be expected from many participants. There appeared to be no direct measure of verbal ability that would permit both of these problems to be addressed. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Pintilie, 1982) was considered. Although it permitted an oral response, the pictures themselves looked too much like pictures from a schoolbook to be suitable. An experimental proxy measure was therefore devised by adapting an instrument developed in North America, the Author Recognition Test (Stanovich & West, 1989) . The ART was adapted despite the possibility that it might be necessary to abandon the resulting data as uninterpretable; the risk seemed worth taking. However, even if the data could not be interpreted as a proxy measure of verbal ability, they were unarguably useful as a direct measure of exposure to print. Moreover, because of the way in which the UK version of the ARC was compiled it was possible that the data would be of interest and use to prison librarians.

Following the Canadian model, a checklist was composed of the names of fifty popular writers, with the names of fifty people not known to be popular writers as foils. A list of

34 popular authors' names was obtained by inspecting the display at a well-known high- street bookseller and stationer. An attempt was made to represent fiction and non-fiction writers from various categories most likely to read by men in prison. 'True crime' writers, however, were excluded, despite their popularity in prison libraries. Following Stanovich & West (1989) , the names of writers likely to have been read at school were omitted. The list of eighty-five names was reduced to fifty-five on advice from a prison librarian, who indicated which authors on the list were already represented in the Library. A further five names were then eliminated. The names of fifty foils included members of staff at the Institute of Criminology, members of Darwin College, and other friends and acquaintances. When all of the names had been arranged in alphabetical order, the sequence of best-selling writers and others was effectively randomised. (The Author Recognition Checklist is reprinted as Appendix V). The protocols were adapted with minor alterations from Stanovich & West (1989) .

The Checklist was presented to participants near the end of the interview, after they had been asked whether they had visited the prison library within the past fortnight. They were shown that it contained a hundred names, printed on both sides of the paper, and asked to put a tick beside any names that they recognised as the names of writers. The score was the sum of authors' names ticked. It was decided not to follow the Canadian model by deducting a point for any foil incorrectly ticked. Such errors were in any case infrequent and thus unlikely to make a significant difference to the relative order of the aggregate scores.

There were two reasons for including a measure of exposure to print in the present survey. The first is that it measures environmentally-mediated individual differences in reading and spelling ability caused by differences in orthographic processing skills (Stanovich & West, 1989) . To the extent that these skills are linked to print exposure, they are environmentally mediated and thus not simply the result of innate phonological processing ability. Because the Author Recognition Test provides a measure of exposure

35 to print, it predicts the variance in orthographic processing that is independent of phonological factors.

A second reason for including a measure of relative levels of exposure to print was that reading contributes to cognitive growth by helping the acquisition of general knowledge and by developing vocabulary and knowledge of syntactic structures (Stanovich, 1993) . It has been shown that, even after the differences in working memory, general ability, and educational level are controlled, exposure to print is a significant predictor of vocabulary and declarative knowledge (Stanovich, West, & Harrison, 1995) . For example, in a study of college students a composite measure of print exposure produced correlations of .8 or more with measures of general and cultural knowledge and a correlation of .74 on a measure of cultural literacy (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993) . If, moreover, the benefits from exposure to print may catch up and surpass the benefits from exposure to speech when readers encounter written language that is richer and more complex than the spoken language they typically experience in conversations and on television (Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997) , exposure to print may account for large differences in verbal ability among subjects from the lower socio-economic classes, since these differences are unlikely to be accounted for in any other way in this part of the population. A measure of exposure to print might thus be expected to have not simply a high correlation with crystalline ability but one that is higher in a lower-class, prison sample than it would be in a middle- or upper-class sample from the general population.

The principal disadvantage in this course of action was that the use of two un-normed measures made it impossible to compare relative levels of fluid and crystalline ability in this sample. The best that could be done was to determine whether superior scores in one domain were matched by superior scores in the other, but this procedure was itself problematic as there was no way of telling how much of the general population's ability range was covered by the ARC, and neither could it be safely assumed that this coverage was even. There was a further problem, in that any assessment of verbal ability that

36 requires reading or writing is likely, in theory, to under-estimate of the abilities of dyslexics. Both the Mill Hill Scale and the ARC could be faulted on this account. An oral assessment might have avoided this problem, but only by creating others, particularly for subjects with working memory problems. However, while wide vocabularies are by no means inconsistent with reading disability they are unusual and perhaps not to be expected in a sample such as this.

There were no practical problems in administering the ARC.

Attention

Deficits in attention and verbal short-term memory are commonly comorbid with reading disabilities. They are therefore a potentially confounding variable in a study such as the present one (see, for example, Virkkunen & Nuutila, 1976) , not least because of the powerful association of the construct attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with childhood conduct disorder and later criminality. In a study of reading disabilities, the critical period for these deficits is the first three years of schooling, when the alphabetic principle should have been mastered.

Of the four challenges had to be addressed at this point, the first was to identify a reliable and valid instrument for a retrospective measure of attention.

The second was conceptual. Was the primary impediment in the case of poor readers with attentional problems a poor verbal short-term memory shown by an inability to sustain attention, or was it a problem with selective attention? Alternatively, if difficulties of both kinds were to be expected, how much would it matter if their measurement was confounded?

37 The third was methodological. A retrospective measure of childhood behaviour is best made from more than one observer's evidence. Loss of recall, false recall and informant bias are obvious risks, compounded when the informant is the subject of the enquiry.

The fourth was evidential. It was desirable to determine whether the alphabetic principle was actively taught in the classroom or, alternatively, whether the subject was left to absorb it from curricular and extra-curricular activities. Insofar as any situational attention problems in the classroom were the result of curriculum content and classroom management techniques before they became habitual behaviours, they could then be differentiated from pervasive problems of organic origin.

The Wender Utah Rating Scale appeared to meet the criteria for a standardised and validated retrospective assessment of childhood ADHD. It was, in addition, simple to administer and its interpretation did not require clinical judgement (Ward, Wender, & Reimherr, 1993) .

The assessment battery already included a reliable test of verbal short-term memory, namely the digit span component of the DAST. This posed two further methodological problems. It measured current not childhood performance and, while a degree of continuity across the lifespan might be expected in a normal population, it might be necessary to control for any common characteristic of the prison population, such as long- term drug or alcohol abuse, depression, or head injury, that might impair current performance. There was a particular problem in assigning clinical significance to accounts of head injuries, given the absence of reliable clinical records and the contradictory findings reported in the literature. The impossibility of resolving these difficulties satisfactorily rendered any findings provisional.

A satisfactory method is still needed to address attentional problems not necessarily linked to verbal working memory but nevertheless likely to impair the process of learning

38 to read. It has been suggested that sustaining attention over time-what schoolteachers call 'paying attention'-is unlikely to be the primary problem for children with an attention deficit (Taylor, 1995) . More recently, it has been argued that in ADHD inattention is not so much a primary symptom as a secondary one, and that a distinction can be made between sustained attention (persistence) that is contingency-shaped and that which is self-regulated and goal-directed (Barkley, 1997) . Working memory deficits, in this model, are identified as a primary symptom of ADHD. This model is specific to the child who is distractible and lacks persistence, who is distinguished as having a different disorder from the child who is dreamy and rather slow. These distinctions may be far from operationalisable in a readily-available diagnostic instrument. They are discussed here as an indication that in this respect, as in so many others in this study, the findings are likely to be complex.

Although it seemed as though this study would have to use a test of ADHD with which it would be feasible neither to pinpoint the form of attentional deficit principally associated with reading failure nor to distinguish between the attentional and other components of the ADHD construct, a degree of differentiation was possible, guided by a published factor analysis of the WURS (Stein, Sandoval, Szumowski, Roizen, Reinecke, Blondis et al., 1995) . As this analysis identified five factors and published separate factor weightings for males, it was possible to construct a scale composed of the most heavily-loaded items for Conduct Problems (I), Stress Intolerance (III), and Attention Problems (IV), omitting Learning Problems (II) and Poor Social Skills (V) as this investigation addresses those issues in other ways. The items selected for this study, including two negatively-loaded foils, re-phrased in British English, together with their factor loadings, are reproduced in Table 3.7 (below).

39 Table 3.7 WURS Factor Loadings (Male).

ITEM I III IV

I was active, restless, always on the go. .41 I found it hard to concentrate. I was easily distracted. .67 I was anxious and worried. .45 I was in trouble with the authorities, or in trouble at school. .58 I was nervous, fidgety. .42 I did not pay attention. I was a daydreamer. .60 I was hot-tempered, with a low boiling point. .49 I had trouble seeing things from someone else's point of .48 view. I had tantrums, or lost my temper easily. .50 I had trouble finishing things I had started. .63 I was reckless and a dare-devil. I did things for kicks. .46 I was the leader. I was bossy. -.41 I teased other children. .58 I wasn’t satisfied with life. I didn't get a kick out of things. .42 I disobeyed my parents. I was rebellious and defiant. .68 I was irritable. .49 I was untidy and disorganised. .64 I ran away from home. .41 I was angry. .51 I was well organised, tidy, neat. -.55 I was a bit immature. .42 I lost control of myself. .60 I felt guilty or regretful. .41

Adapted from: Stein, M. A., Sandoval, R., Szumowski, E., Roizen, N., Reinecke, M. A., Blondis, T. A., & Klein, Z. (1995).

There were two further departures from the way in which the shorter WURS was administered by its originators. First, instead of being a pencil-and-paper exercise, the checklist was presented as a set of sort cards. Each item was printed on a green card measuring six inches by four, which was then laminated. Second, the number of response options was reduced from five to three, so that instead of scoring each response from 0

40 through 4, the possible scoring was 0, 2, 4. Because the subjects were asked to sort the cards into three wallets, marked 'Not at all like me, or only very slightly', 'Quite like me', and 'Very much like me', and because these wallets were not numbered (although they were always arranged from the subject's left to his right respectively), it is unlikely that the aggregate scores were inflated by this simplification. It was impressed on subjects that the period of interest extended from their earliest memories at three or four years old until they were thirteen or fourteen, but no later. The cards were handed to the subject one at a time, and a new card was handed over as soon as the previous card had been sorted, without any comment from the investigator except an occasional reminder about the time- frame. Most subjects were able to read the cards silently. For subjects unable to do this, the card was read aloud before being handed over. The meaning of 'irritable' was explained to about ten subjects. When all of the cards had been sorted, they were placed in their respective wallets, to be coded after the session was over.

Social cognition

It has already been noted that the functional literacy assessment provided only a brief opportunity to assess inferential ability, and it was a limitation of that opportunity that the passages used literal rather than figurative language. Because other important reading subskills remained to be assessed, and because reading-disabled subjects have been found deficient in these subskills, possibly in consequence of impairments in social cognition like those associated with Asperger's syndrome, which is in its turn comorbid with dyslexia at levels above chance, it was decided to assess the verbal aspect of social cognition rather than, for example, aspects of face recognition.

There were no suitable tests immediately available for use with adults. To meet this needed, adaptations were made of four of the 'Strange Stories' developed for the assessment of autism and Asperger's syndrome in children (Happé, 1994) . A fifth story was adapted from unpublished work by Muir & Norden. Each story required the participant to draw an inference about a character's thoughts and feelings, guided by an

41 expression in figurative language. This short battery (reproduced in Appendix VI) became the assessment of social cognition.

Every participant who was able to read the simple language in which the stories had been written was invited to read them silently. The questions were asked and answered orally. The stories were read aloud to subjects who were unable to read for themselves. In an inadvertent departure from standard practice with children, participants were not asked to turn over the page and answer the questions from memory. Answers were recorded verbatim in the interview booklet and scored during the test.

Receptive syntax

Because both written and oral communication can be impaired by misunderstanding of word order rather than of word meanings, and because such misunderstandings affect social behaviour, it was decided to make a separate assessment of receptive syntax. This assessment was included in order to discover whether there was any correlation with other variables in the survey, particularly literacy subskills.

A simple, experimental instrument was devised by adapting seven intensional sentences from originals by Scholes & Willis (1991) . The instrument is reproduced below in Table 3.8.

42 Table 3.8 Intensional Sentences: A Test of Receptive Syntax.

1 If Gerry helps Jim, who does the helping?

2 If the boy standing beside the old woman wore a straw hat, who wore the straw hat?

3 If Dave promises that Phil gets the tickets, who gets the tickets?

4 If a girl watches an artist drawing a picture of a young man running away, who runs away?

5 If John is pushed by Tony, who does the pushing?

6 If Julie promises Den to fetch the kettle, who fetches the kettle?

7 If a girl watching a photographer taking a picture of an Olympic hurdler runs away, who runs away?

'Intensionality-with-an-s' has been defined as a property of a certain class of sentences, statements, and other linguistic entities: a sentence is said to be intensional if it fails to satisfy certain tests of external reference (Searle, 1983) . Because intensional sentences exclude the possibility of reliance on contextual clues, the questions in this assessment battery are valid for the purpose of testing skills in syntactic analysis.

If skills in syntactic analysis are included among the metalinguistic or cognitive skills that distinguish literates from illiterates (Scholes & Willis, 1991) , a positive correlation could be expected between the scores on this battery and other measures of cognitive and linguistic ability, supporting the view that 'the handicap of illiteracy is far more profound than is suggested by the inability to read' (Scholes & Willis, 1991, p. 230).

A difficulty in explaining such a correlation might arise from the effects of brain injury. Indirect requests, which resemble intensional sentences in their syntactic complexity while

43 differing from them in their inferential demands, have been found to create difficulties for patients with right-hemisphere damage (Stemmer, Giroux, & Joanette, 1994) , and it seems reasonable to suppose that traumatic injuries among members of the sample might have impaired their performance on this assessment. However, while traumatic injuries are a potential confound, they might also assist the understanding of linguistic problems of socio-cultural origin so that, even if etiologies could not be reliably ascertained, appropriate interventions could be devised.

The questions were read aloud to all subjects as in this way it was possible to standardise the emphases and pauses. The responses were scored in the interview booklet. There were no problems in administering this assessment.

It happened on about ten occasions that a subject would answer question 7 and then wish to re-consider question 5. Since it was always the case that he had incorrectly answered the easier question but correctly answered the more difficult one, this revision was permitted, as it would have been in a pencil-and-paper test. There are two conflicting issues here. On the one hand, impulsiveness may have been a factor in the original response to question 5. On the other hand, self-monitoring was a factor in the participant's wish to revise it. Since this module was not an assessment of impulsiveness but one of receptive syntax, it was helpful to be able to eliminate a confound at source. Nonetheless, impulsiveness might confound the responses of some subjects scoring below the normal ceiling on this assessment.

Motor and vocal tics

The comorbidity of dyslexia and Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome has been considered in Chapter II. Although the low prevalence of GTS minimises the likelihood that it could seriously confound any study of a relationship between dyslexia and anti-social behaviour, it was included for the sake of completeness. This decision was supported by an observation that a high proportion of patients attending a tertiary referral clinic for

44 GTS had indications of personality disorder (Robertson, Banergee, Fox-Hiley, & Tannock, 1997) . The present investigator was trained in the recognition of motor and vocal tics by Dr M. M. Robertson at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. It must be emphasised that this was not a training in the diagnosis of GTS.

In the clinic, diagnosis of GTS is made by direct observation with the help of a symptom checklist (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) . Subjects are observed for a period during which the variety of different motor and vocal tics are noted, together with a record of their frequency. In the present study, an abbreviated list of symptoms was taken from the National Hospital's Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome Schedule (Robertson & Eapen, 1996) and included in the Post-Interview Questionnaire as questions 120 and 121. In the event of a participant producing motor or vocal tics during the interview, it was planned to make a discreet note of the tics and their frequencies on a blank sheet of paper and to enter the details after the participant had left the room.

There were no practical difficulties in observing symptoms of GTS or in recording them without alerting the subject to the fact.

The Structured Interview

Introduction

The content of the structured interview was determined by practical considerations. The most pressing was the limited time available for the interview and assessment session. The options were either to contain everything within a single session or to ask each participant to attend two or more sessions. The over-riding consideration was that the fieldwork had to be concluded within a calendar year in order to allow time for analysis and writing-up. Within that period, a target number of two hundred interviews had to be completed. Most prison regimes were likely to permit a maximum of two hours in the morning, afternoon, or evening. Because of the time required for access negotiations, lost appointments, and sessions unavailable as a result either of regime requirements or of

45 participant commitments, a pessimistic forecast suggested that it might be possible to fill no more than five sessions a week. A no less pessimistic assumption was that the participation rate (and thus the representativeness of the sample) might be compromised by the prospect of commitment to more than one session. However, even if participants were willingly available for more than one session, the calendar requirement was for a single session. When a safety margin was included, to allow for late starts and slow or particularly detailed responses, the target duration for the session was set at an hour and three-quarters. Within this limit, everything had to be contained.

Time was not the only constraint. Questions needed to be accessible, not only in their vocabulary and syntax but also in their cultural assumptions, to the widest range of participants. These considerations made for greater explicitness and thus for greater length. There was a further constraint in the difficulty of framing questions in a retrospective enquiry. Only on those matters where the response was likely to be accurate as to fact and within the set time-frame could questions reasonably be included. No questions were included about the methods by which participants were taught to read in their elementary schools, for example, even though this information would have enhanced the value of the survey. In retrospect, this exclusion might have been over- scrupulous: a filter question, asking simply whether or not the participant had any memories of learning to read, might have led to a choice from two or three simple descriptions of teaching approaches.

It addition, it was decided to limit the number of questions that might cause participants any distress. On a small number of occasions, memories of being abused as children or of marital breakdown in adult life prompted tears. Although participants were not asked about the offences leading to their imprisonment, a number of men chose to tell me why they were in prison, although only on one occasion did this cause visible distress.

Even if complete faith could be placed in participants' accuracy of recall and freedom from retrospective bias, the design of the study is undoubtedly compromised by its dependence

46 upon a single informant interviewed on a single occasion. For between-group comparisons this might not matter very much if, as is likely, the effects are similar for each group, but it has unarguable implications for the ecological validity of the study. To some extent, therefore, the findings should be regarded not as definitive but as hypotheses for further investigation within a prospective longitudinal, multi-informant research study.

Sources of the questions

The questions included in the interview schedule were drawn from a reading of the literatures on literacy and anti-social behaviour. Where possible, they were taken verbatim or with minor adaptations from published studies so as to facilitate comparison of the findings. Problems arose when questions were included without adaptation on the assumption that they had been run successfully in the past, although these were principally matters affecting the analysis, not the wording.

Question and assessment modules

The session was designed as a sequence of modules in which question sets alternated with assessments. The purpose was to establish a sense of pace and variety within the interview, to affirm its validity as an investigation into reading, and to progress gradually from an unchallenging start, through a potentially stressful central section, to a relaxed and amicable conclusion.

The Interview Schedule is reproduced in Appendix VII.

After introductory remarks, in which the participant was thanked for agreeing to take part in the survey and assured of confidentiality, the purpose of the study was summarised before he was asked the first question set, concerned mainly with health and language.

47 Functional literacy was the subject of the first assessment. This was selected as initially unchallenging for nearly all participants and offering early confirmation that the focus of the study was reading. It was also likely to present an opportunity to observe participants as they addressed themselves to a task, in this case to note whether they moved their lips or followed the words with a forefinger.

The second question set addressed the participant's everyday life, his employment history, and his civilian recreations. Apart from the useful insights into the participant's personality permitted by the recreational questions, the opportunity to talk about matters that gave him pleasure helped to establish an easy rapport for the more taxing modules that followed.

The second assessment module, for specific reading disability, was the longest, lasting between twenty and twenty-five minutes. By the time it was completed, the session was half-way through. The principal components have already been described. The investigator cannot exaggerate his gratitude to the participants for their willingness to undertake these tasks. In a few instances, written items were omitted to spare the least literate participants any embarrassment. Proxy scores below the fourth percentile were then entered. While the loss of exact data may be regretted, this action probably earned sufficient goodwill for the remainder of the schedule to be completed. On a few occasions when time was running short after a late start, the interview was halted at this point and resumed in a later session.

The third question set was, potentially, the most emotionally disturbing of the sequence. For this reason, it was scheduled after the half-way point. It was anticipated that questions about the early years, family relationships, and the childhood home, would evoke distressing memories, as they did for several participants. Nevertheless, the momentum of the session was by this time sufficient to carry things through.

48 If a dampening effect was needed after the emotional demand of the previous module, it was provided by the assessment of fluid intelligence. This usually took between five and seven minutes to complete. At first, participants were asked to identify their answers by sticking a red roundel over the response option on each page (which was enclosed in a clear filing pocket). The protocol had the double attraction of leaving the participant to work through the selection at his own pace and giving the interviewer a welcome break in concentration. Later, when unsticking the roundels with artists' petrol had become the investigator's most tedious task in the daily round, participants were asked to state the number of the item that they had chosen, and this was entered on the mark-sheet as they replied.

The fourth question set asked about education. For some participants, this proved their most valuable contribution to the study, as they commented on their school histories.

The next module consisted of three brief assessments. The card-sorting exercise for the assessment of childhood attention-deficit and hyperactivity was brief and often engaging. A number of participants smiled as the legends reminded them of their childhood selves. The questions assessing receptive syntax were quickly asked and answered. The Strange Stories used to assess social cognition were easy enough for most of the participants to read for themselves, but it was noticed that some who had read the functional literacy test passages without moving their lips began to move their lips in the Strange Stories. (The significance of this observation will be considered in Chapter V.) Although it was not part of the assessment to record any appreciation of the droll humour of the fourth and fifth stories, a marginal note was made if the participant laughed or smiled, as many did. It was certainly intended that by this stage the mood of the session should be lighter.

The last question set addressed miscellaneous issues concerned with the participant's adult life. Among them were his domestic situation at the moment of his arrest and any

49 involvement with further or higher education in prison. In this way, the formal part of the session was planned to end neutrally on a matter of current interest.

However, just before the participant left he was asked to look at the Author Recognition Checklist, the proxy measure of verbal intelligence that was a natural sequel to a question about his use of the prison library. Participants were shown that it was printed on both sides of the paper. No record was kept of the number of men who needed a reminder that the checklist continued on the reverse side, although it might have become a telling simple measure of prospective memory.

The last question in the structured interview was an invitation to talk about any topic that had come up in the course of the session. A large number of participants welcomed this opportunity, and for a variety of reasons. A few sought to extend the investigator's knowledge of prisons and prisoners and helped him to contextualise the research. Others spoke of problems that concerned them, such as that of being a good parent to a teenage child while in prison. Yet others reflected on their experience of school and the way that this had influenced their attitudes to their children's education. Those who acted as amanuenses for less literate prisoners spoke about this, while men who had used amanuenses recounted their side of the experience.

When the participant had left the interview room, the post-interview checklist was completed. On the single occasion when a participant had motor tics, a record was begun on a sheet of paper attached to the interviewer's clipboard, so that the entries represented a transcription of current observations. The last question, about standard or non-standard English, was sometimes answered after reference to the verbatim transcriptions of responses to the social cognition questions and other comments taken down verbatim in the interview booklet.

50 Feedback from participants

The success of this design in meeting some of its criteria can be judged in two ways. First, feedback from early interviews in any prison or on any wing appeared positive to the extent that only one refusal occurred as a certain reaction to hearsay about the research. At other times, it was clear that the feedback helped to confirm a tentative agreement to participate. On many occasions when participants were encountered after the interview, they were spontaneously friendly and asked how the research was progressing. There were exceptions, of course: the men who would pass silently by in a corridor, either because they were shy or because they could not afford to arouse suspicion by being seen in conversation with a stranger. But these exceptions were rare.

Logistics

Introduction

There was no pilot survey to test the logistics of the research. A limited amount of guidance was offered before the interviews started. Beyond that, it was decided to accommodate the research programme to the best provision that prison authorities were able to offer. Two procedural modifications were suggested by experience. The first was to stratify the sample wing by wing and where, as at HMP Garth, the population on the wing consisted of distinct categories of prisoner, to stratify by category, too. This change was implemented at HMP Norwich. The second procedural modification was to approach prospective participants in person rather than by an introductory letter. This innovation was introduced at HMP Wayland.

Sampling procedure

Two study samples were included in the investigation, an epidemiological sample and a research sample, although only data from the epidemiological sample were included in the statistical analysis. The epidemiological sampling was undertaken in two stages. At the first stage, a non-randomised but diverse sample of seven prisons was drawn. At the

51 second stage, a stratified random sample of prisoners was drawn from each prison. The small research group was a non-randomised, convenience sample of men who either volunteered themselves or were suggested by those who knew them as likely on account of their reading problems to make a qualitative contribution to the research.

The prisons from which the sample was drawn were, in chronological sequence, HMP Highpoint, HMP Norwich, HMP Wayland, HMP Chelmsford, HMP Hollesley Bay Colony, HMP Garth, and HMP Full Sutton. They represent the full range, but not the proportions, of adult male prisoner security classifications, with the exception of prisoners held in special secure units.

All 203 participants in the epidemiological study were convicted adult male prisoners. In the research study, fifteen men were convicted prisoners, one was on remand but had previously served custodial sentences, and one was a Prison Service employee who offered to take part because he himself had been assessed as dyslexic by an educational psychologist.

At the outset, the sampling fraction was calculated by dividing the best estimate of the aggregate certified normal accommodation for the prisons in the original programme by the target number of interviews.

At each prison, a systematic random sample was taken. The practicalities of the sampling procedure varied from prison to prison. Usually, the alphabetical LIDS print-out for each wing was used as the sampling frame. The first name in the sample would be counted from the head of the list to a previously-chosen random number. The sample fractions would then be counted off and names, prison numbers, and locations recorded separately. At HMP Chelmsford, the print-out listed names in order of cell number; as cell allocation was randomised by availability, the list was used as printed. At HMP Garth, the random cell allocations were displayed on the wall of each wing office, showing the prisoner's

52 security category and whether he was a lifer. It was thus possible to stratify the sample from each wing in a way that preserved the proportions of Category C prisoners and lifers in the establishment as a whole. The sample from HMP Full Sutton was strictly unrepresentative of that establishment, as it could be taken from only two of the wings, one of which was a sex offender wing. However, there was an attempt to make the sample from the latter more representative of the prison as a whole in age (if not offence) by including only those men whose age was listed as forty or under.

The wing complement divided by the sampling fraction determined the number of interviews to be sought on any wing. Although it sometimes happened that every man approached would agree to participate in the survey, a prudent assumption was that some men would decline (or agree but later become unavailable for one reason or another). The sampling was continued by recording names identified by the sampling fraction until enough names were held in reserve for each category in the stratification. Whenever a man in the main list declined to take part, no time was lost in identifying the first reserve.

An effort was made to exclude those were known to be mentally unstable and those who had not yet adjusted to life in their current establishment. On two occasions men on induction were included, but on neither occasion did the test performance appear to reflect any emotional disturbance. Three men currently held in segregation units for offences against good order and discipline were interviewed. One man whom staff found irascible was nevertheless interviewed. In all of these interviews, the men were constructive and agreeable. Men whose mother-tongue was not English were included if they seemed to understand English sufficiently well for the interview, as they were likely to help in answering some of the research questions.

At first, when the sample had been drawn, a standard letter of introduction was sent to prospective participants to invite their participation. This approach proved unsatisfactory:

53 letters were sometimes misdirected, and word-of-mouth responses were not always forwarded by wing officers. Not only that, but it was impossible to assess the reasons for non-participation and hence the likely direction of bias in the findings. The participation rate at HMP Highpoint was particularly unsatisfactory, although with advance information about the allocation to this prison a lower rate might have been predicted because of the relatively high proportions of ethnic minority and violent offenders in their early twenties. However, because of the high participation rate at HMP Norwich, it was not found necessary to take action until HMP Wayland.

At HMP Wayland, the letter of introduction was abandoned and, instead, personal contact with potential participants was sought on the wing. If the wing was on patrol state, the investigator was escorted by a member of the uniformed staff who unlocked for him. Otherwise, the investigator made his own way around the landings. When he met a prospective participant, he introduced himself, explained the random selection process, and summarised the aims of the research before inviting the potential participant to take part. If the man declined, he could then be asked for his reasons. Otherwise, an appointment was then made for the interview. This often took less than a minute.

It was explained that, just as the selection procedure was randomised, so all information would be considered confidential. At the start of the interview, participants were told that all records would be numerically coded for anonymity and that they would be merged in the statistical analysis. Anonymity seemed to matter to few of the participants; only one man declined to answer a question he feared might compromise the anonymity of his data. Confidentiality was seldom an explicit consideration, possibly because the matters that participants wished to keep confidential were those they would not divulge in any circumstances.

54 Interview timetable

After prospective participants had agreed to take part, the interview timetable was updated and a member of the uniformed staff entered the appointment in the wing diary. There was little difficulty in arranging appointments to accommodate other commitments such as anger management classes, visits, and medical consultations, or in re-scheduling them if the prospective participant became unavailable for any reason. As a result, only one and a half working days were lost after HMP Highpoint. Credit for this outcome is shared between members of the sample, who usually alerted the investigator to unforeseen commitments well in advance, and uniformed staff, who sometimes went well out of their way to locate missing participants or their substitutes.

Interviews were timetabled to start at nine o'clock in the morning or two o'clock in the afternoon. The occasional evening interviews, which took place only at HMP Wayland, HMP Hollesley Bay Colony, and HMP Garth, and usually involved members of the research sample rather than the epidemiological sample, began at six o'clock during association time. A number of men were willing to be interviewed at weekends, willingly foregoing association, and so weekend interviews took place at HMP Highpoint, HMP Wayland, HMP Chelmsford, HMP Hollesley Bay Colony, and HMP Full Sutton.

Interview locations

Many of the sessions took place in a small interview room on the wing. Most frequently, the interviews took place in a dedicated interview room, often one used by probation staff. Other interview locations included offices, amenity rooms, television rooms, wing libraries, a classroom, a prison chapel or vestry, and-in three instances-the participant's cell. It seemed that participants felt more at ease on their wing than in the education block, but in no case was the conduct of the interview compromised by the room allocated to it.

55 Logistical problems

Bureaucratic delay proved to be inherent to the process of obtaining permission for access. Letters were useful, but only when they were followed up with telephone calls. Personal recommendations were critically important on three occasions. But apart from an initial delay of about two months, and a much later delay of six weeks, both associated with major problems in dispersal prisons, the fieldwork ran smoothly, with no time lost between finishing at one prison and starting at the next one. There was time to draft two chapters before the fieldwork began, and to prepare most of the data for analysis before the last round of interviews was undertaken.

Once permission for access had been granted, accessibility might have been problematic because of the rural location of five of the prisons. However, the additional funding raised was enough to permit the purchase of a car, so that it was possible to budget for cross- country travel and local accommodation. The necessity for escorted movement within three of the prisons could have been seen as a problem, either for the researcher or for the prison staff. In fact, it proved relatively easy to accommodate the research timetable to the movements of uniformed and other prison staff. At HMP Norwich, escorts were provided mostly by members of the education staff and occasionally by probation officers and prison chaplains. At HMP Garth and HMP Full Sutton, uniformed staff and prison psychologists were the most frequent escorts. All of these occasions provided invaluable opportunities to ask questions or to act as a sounding-board. On those occasions when it was necessary to wait for normal staff movements at the end of a shift, there were legitimate opportunities either to talk informally with men on the landings or simply to observe the ways in which staff went about their duties.

56 Record-keeping

Quantitative data

At the end of each day's interviewing, data were transcribed from the booklet on to transfer sheets which had been prepared to reduce the risk of error when data were entered into the computer.

As often as the investigator returned to Cambridge, data were entered into the computer. For viewing on-screen without scrolling, data from the interview schedule were entered into four data files, using a typewriter font to maintain the column alignments. Separate data files were opened for the DAST and the WURS data. The data matrices were saved as text-only documents in Microsoft Word 5.1A for Macintosh. Copies of the data-set are available for re-analysis at The Data Archive, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK.

The data analysis software used was SPSS for the Macintosh, version 4.05.

Qualitative data

The daily routine of transfer sheet completion also offered a chance to make supplementary notes about the interviews while their memory was fresh. In addition, a record was kept of methodological issues arising out of the day's work. As often as possible, case-notes were written for each participant and combined with a more general record in the form of a research diary which eventually exceeded seventy thousand words.

57

Date: ..... | ..... | ..... Code: ..... | ..... | ..... | .....| .....| .....

PRISON READING SURVEY

M ICHAEL R ICE

D ARWIN C OLLEGE C AMBRIDGE

Telephone 01223 500746 Start Time: ...... Location: ......

PART 1

1 I'd like to start by asking you some questions about your general health. Do you ever wear glasses?

Yes, all the time ...... 1 Yes, for close work ...... 2 3 Yes, for distant viewing/driving .... 3 No, but glasses prescribed ...... 4

No ...... 5 2

2 Have you ever had your eyesight checked? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 3

a) Write the most recent appointment ...... Code

3 How about your hearing? Do you normally find it hard to hear what people are saying to you? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 5

a) What age were you when this problem started? Write: ...... Code 4

4 Have you ever been to the doctor's about your hearing? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 5

a) Were you given any treatment? Write description: ...... 5 ...... Code 5 How often do you go to the dentist's?

Prompt as necessary For a regular check-up ...... 1 For treatment only...... 2 6

Never ...... 3

6 Can you tell me if you have ever had:

Code all that apply asthma? ...... 1 hay fever? ...... 2 eczema? ...... 3 7

arthritis? ...... 4 DK/None of these ...... 8

7 Are you taking anything that might affect your concentration today (that's to say, drugs of any kind)? Yes ...... 1 No ...... 2 8

NR ...... 9

8 Do you have any tattoos? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 9

a) Did you do any of the tattooing yourself?

Yes ...... 1 9

No ...... 2

9 Do you have full use of your arms and legs? Yes ...... 1 10

No ...... 2 a) a) Write details: ...... Code 10 10 Suppose there was an accident where you injured one of your hands. Which hand would it matter most to injure?

Right ...... 1 Left ...... 2 11 Neither ...... 3 Previous injury to dominant hand . 4

11 Next, I'd like you to show me how you would do something. Could you make a pistol with your hand, please, and take aim for a spot on the wall above my head?

R L

Hand

Eye Code 12

12 Is English the only language you speak? Yes ...... 1 BSA No ...... 2 a)

a) Has English always been the language you spoke with your parents? Yes ...... 1 BSA No ...... 2 13

13 What other language(s) do you (or did you) speak with your parents? Write: ...... Code 14

14 Do you read and write in (13)?

Yes: read ...... 1

Yes: write ...... 2 BSA No: neither read nor write ...... 3 That was the first part of the Interview. How do you feel about it so far - all right? Good.

We're now going to start the first set of Assessments. They're designed to show what people with a wide range of abilities can do. This means that nobody will be able to do all of the tasks It's normal to find some of the tasks difficult. It's also normal to find that there are some that you can't do at all.

What I'd like you to bear in mind is this: what I can learn from your results will help other people like you. It might help them to spend less time inside. Or it might help them to avoid getting into trouble altogether. I'm sure they'd be grateful to you if it did help them.

Are you ready?

G O T O BASIC SKILLS AGENCY LITERACY ASSESSMENT

P A R T 2 Next, some questions about your everyday life, work, and spare time activities before you came to prison. 15 Can you swim? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 16

16 Can you drive a car? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 17 a) How many times did you take your driving test? ...... 17

17 Can you cook a meal by yourself? (Clarify: more than boiling an egg?) Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 a) Have you ever decorated a room? (Painted or papered?) Yes ...... 1 18 No ...... 2

18 Before you came to prison, how often did you go out for a meal?

Prompt as necesssary At least once a week...... 1 Less than once a week...... 2 19

Never ...... 3

How often did you go out for a drink before you came to 19 prison?

Prompt as necesssary More than three times a week...... 1 a)

Twice a week or less...... 2

Never ...... 3 20 (Check: Never drink at all?) a) What's the most you'd normally drink in a session - say, if you were out on a binge? Write: ...... Code units of alcohol 20 20 Have you ever had a bank account with a cheque-book? Yes ...... 1 21 No ...... 2

21 Have you ever had a passport? Yes ...... 1 22 No ...... 2 23

22 Have you travelled to foreign countries?

Prompt as necessary Yes, on my own ...... 1 Yes, with others ...... 2 23

No ...... 3

23 Have you ever voted in an election? (Either a general election or a local government election.) Yes ...... 1 24 No ...... 2

24 Have you ever won a prize in a competition? (If 'Yes', What did you have to do?) Establish if skill or Yes, skill required ...... 1 judgement required

Yes, no skill required ...... 2 25

No ...... 3

25 Have you ever won a certificate (or a cup or other trophy) in a sporting event? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 26 a) Write details: ......

...... 26

26 Have you ever been awarded a certificate for passing an examination? Yes ...... 1 27 No ...... 2 28 27 Which examinations have you passed?

Prompt City and Guilds? ...... 1 CSE? ...... 2 O levels? ...... 3 GCSE? ...... 4 A levels? ...... 5 28 Degree or higher degree? ...... 6 Other (specify) ...... 7 ......

28 Just before you came into prison, did you have any kind of paid work? Yes ...... 1 29 No ...... 2 31

29 What was your job? Write: ...... Registrar-General's Code a)

a) Employed...... 1 b) Self-employed ...... 2 30

b) Manager ...... 1 Foreman/supervisor ...... 2 30

Other ...... 3 Interviewer code

Unofficial job/ black economy job ...... 999 30

30 How long had you had this job? Years Months Weeks

| | | a) a) What was the pay? (How much an hour/week/month?)

Write amount: ...... Code 35

31 What were you doing just before you came into prison? Unemployed, seeking work ...... 01 32 Unemployed, not seeking work ...... 02

Retired ...... 03 Waiting to take up a job/education/training ...... 04 In full-time education ...... 05 Long-term sick ...... 06 33 Not working because bringing up a family ...... 07 Living off crime ...... 08 Visiting this country ...... 09 Other ...... 10

32 At the time you came to prison, how long had you been unemployed?

Years Months Weeks

| | | 34

Never worked ...... 1

33 May I just check: Have you ever done any paid work? Yes ...... 1 34 No ...... 2 38 34 What was your most recent job? Write: ......

......

a) Employed ...... 1 Self-employed ...... 2

b) Manager ...... 1 35 Foreman/supervisor ...... 2 Other ...... 3

Interviewer code

Unofficial job/ black economy job ...... 999 35

35 Did your work require you to do any writing (such as filling in timesheets or stocklists, or sending written messages of any kind)? Yes ...... 1 36 No ...... 2 38

36 Did writing at work give you any problems? Yes ...... 1 37 No ...... 2 38

37 What problems did it give you? Summarise respondent's difficulties with written tasks: ......

...... Code 38

38 In the last three months (or since you have been in prison), have you received any letters? Yes ...... 1 39 No ...... 2 39 Have you written any letters (in the last three months)? Yes ...... 1 40 No ...... 2

40 Can I ask you a question about your life outside prison? What did you normally like doing in your spare time? What sort of things are you interested in? Do you like: Code all that apply listening to music? ...... 01 Check: outside prison playing a musical instrument?...... 02 mending things (technical skill) ? ... 03 making things (craft skill)? ...... 04 DIY?...... 05 films/theatre? ...... 06 Favourite programme(s)? watching television? ...... 07 socialising: pub/club/party? ...... 08 41 travelling? ...... 09 or What? collecting things? ...... 10 42 About what? reading? ...... 11 gardening? ...... 12 looking after animals?...... 13 Games played? sport (participant)? ...... 14 sport (spectator))? ...... 15 Fruit machines? Horses? gambling? ...... 16 other (specify) ...... 17 ...... NR ...... 99

41 PROBE reading, collecting.....

Code 42 42 Have you ever played games where you had to keep your eye on a ball that was moving quite fast, like football, baseball, cricket, table tennis, or basketball? (Underline one - R's best game - as appropriate) Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 DAST

a) How would you rate your skill at (name of best game)? Prompt Good ...... 1 Average ...... 2 DAST Not all that good...... 3

GO TO SHEFFIELD DYSLEXIA ADULT SCREENING TEST

PART 3 43 I'd like to ask you now about your early years, your family, and your childhood home. Is that all right? If R assents: From when you were born until you left school, who was it you lived with?

Both parents ...... 01 Probe fully One parent ...... 02 and code all that apply One step-parent and parent ...... 03 A step-parent only ...... 04 44 Adopted parents ...... 05 Grandparent(s) ...... 06 Other relative ...... 07 Foster parents ...... 08 None of these 09 ......

44 Do you have any brothers or sisters?

No. of brothers...... | Probe: brothers, or No. of sisters ...... | half-brothers? No. of half-brothers...... | a) No. of half-sisters ...... | No. of step/adopted brothers...... | No. of step/adopted sisters...... | Only child ...... 99 45 a) How many of your brothers and sisters are older than you?

Reply: ...... So you're the ( ) child of the family? Code | 45 45 What age were you at your last birthday? Respondent's age now ...... | NR ...... 99 46

46 What age was your mother at her last birthday?

(Birth mother) Mother's age now (write): |

NR ...... 99 47

Compute Mother's age when R born ...... | 47 Up to the time you started school, who looked after you?

Mother ...... 1 48 Other (specify) ...... 2

48 Up to the age of 16, were you ever taken into care, or did you spend time in a borstal, an approved school, or a young offender unit? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 49 a) Why was that? (Summarise main reason) ...... Code 49

49 Can you tell me about where you lived when you were about eleven - when you left your primary school? Did it look like any of these pictures? (Show ACORN classification) If' Yes', Which one? If 'No', How would you describe where you lived, then? Write respondent's choice or description: ...... Code 50

50 When you were about eleven, did your home have:

Running prompt a television set? ...... 01 a fridge? ...... 02 a telephone? ...... 03 a washing machine? ...... 04 a daily newspaper? ...... 05 a car? ...... 06 51 a dishwasher? ...... 07 central heating? ...... 08 a stereo or hi-fi? ...... 09

a bookshelf with books in it? ...... 10 a garden? ...... 11 wall-to-wall-carpets? ...... 12 CHECK main breadwinner

51 When you were about eleven, was your (father) working? Yes ...... 1 52 No ...... 2 53

52 What job was (s)he doing? Write job name or description ......

...... Code 54

53 What was his/her job, normally? Write job name or description ......

...... Code 54

54 Did the adults at home generally get on well with each other?

Probe if necessary Yes ...... 1 56

No ...... 2 55

It depended on: (specify) ...... 3

......

55 What happened when they got on badly? Did they shout? ...... 1 Code all that apply smash things? ...... 2 hit one another? ...... 3 56

hit you? ...... 4

leave home for a while? ...... 5 other (specify) ...... 6 May we talk about you now? Everyone does things that are wrong when they are small children. 56 Did the grown-ups ever become angry if you did the wrong thing accidentally - like dropping something and breaking it, or like losing something?

Yes ...... 1 57

No ...... 2

57 Before you first went to school, how often did you do things that you knew were naughty? Quite often ...... 1 a)

Not very often ...... 2 a) Can you remember any of the naughty things that you did? Write examples: ......

...... Code 58

58 Did anything happen to you when (your parents) found out you had been naughty? No parental reponse ...... 1 PROBE Verbal (explanatory) ...... 2 Code all that apply Verbal (angry) ...... 3 59 Corporal punishment (token) ...... 4 Corporal punishment (harsh) ...... 5 Deprivation (emotional) ...... 6 Deprivation (material) ...... 7 Other (specify) ...... 59 ...... Code

59 Did you generally know what you risked if (your parents) found out you had done something wrong?

Yes ...... 1 PROBE for erratic or inconsistent punishment 60 No ...... 2 May we move forward in time, to when you were a teenager - say, about fourteen or fifteen years old? 60 When you went out, did (your parents) tell you what time they wanted you to be home again?

Yes ...... 1 61 No ...... 2

61 If you came back late, what happened then? Write respondent's answer: ......

...... Code 62

62 Did you ever think about running away from home? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 63

a) Did circumstances ever cause you to run away?

Yes ...... 1 63

No ...... 2

63 Back to your (parents). Did they get any academic qualifications? The sort of things I mean are: Father Mother Degree ...... 1 1 Professional Diploma ...... 2 2 A level/HND ...... 3 3 O level/OND ...... 4 4

Code highest GCSE ...... 5 5 64 CSE ...... 6 6 City & Guilds ...... 7 7

Other (specify) ...... 8 8 DK/Nothing...... 9 9 I expect you've heard that, by the age of thirty, about one man in three has been convicted of a criminal offence of one kind or another. 64 Have (your parents) or any other members of your family ever been convicted of an offence? Probe if necessary: Do you think they have?

Yes ...... 1 65

No ...... 2 66 DK ...... 8

65 Which members of your family have been convicted? (b)

Parent ...... 1 1 Code all that Step-parent ...... 2 2 apply Grandparent ...... 3 3 Brother/Sister ...... 4 4 Uncle/Aunt ...... 5 5 a) Cousin ...... 6 6 Son/Daughter ...... 7 7 Non-blood-relation/in-laws ...... 8 8 Other (specify) ...... 9 9

a) Have any of these served time?

Yes ...... 1 b) No ...... 2 66

b) Ask or record

Which members? Code in grid above 66 Many people suffer from clinical depression at some time in their lives. 66 Has any member of your family ever been clinically depressed? I mean very depressed, for days or weeks at a time. Probe for medical Yes and sought medical attention .. 1 a) attention or hospital treatment Yes but no medical attention ...... 2

No ...... 3 c) a) Which member(s)? Write: ...... b)

...... b) How did this affect you? Write: ...... c)

......

c) Before you came to prison, did you yourself ever get clinically depressed? Probe Yes and sought medical attention... 1 Yes but no medical attention ...... 2 67 No ...... 3

67 One of the things that can depress people is frequent change of address. Up to the time you left school, did (your family) always live at the same address? Yes ...... 1 69 No ...... 2 68

68 When you changed your address, did you also change from one school to another? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 69

a) Can you remember how many different schools you went to?

Write: ...... Code CHECK (Parents?)

69 Let's think about reading for a moment. When you were a boy, did you ever see your (father) reading to himself? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 70

a) What sort of things did he read? Write answer: ......

...... Code 70

70 When you were a boy, did you ever see your (mother) reading to herself ? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 71

a) What sort of things did she read? Write answer: ......

......

Code 71

71 When you were a boy, did anyone ever read to you ? Yes ...... 1 72 No ...... 2 74

72 Who was it who read to you?

Code all that apply Mother ...... 1 Father ...... 2 73 Sister/brother ...... 3

Other (specify) ...... 4 73 Did you like being read to?

Yes ...... 1 No ...... 2 75 Depended on: (specify) ......

...... 3

74 Did you ever wish that somebody would read to you?

Yes ...... 1 75 No ...... 2 DK ...... 8

75 Do any members of your family have problems with reading ?

a) b) Read Write Spell

Code any Parent ...... 01 01 01 that apply. Step-parent ...... 02 02 02 Do NOT Grandparent ...... 03 03 03 prompt. Brother/Sister ...... 04 04 04 Uncle/Aunt ...... 05 05 05 Cousin ...... 06 06 06 Son/Daughter ...... 07 07 07 Non blood relation/in-laws .... 08 08 08 Other (specify) ...... 09 09 09 No-one ...... 10 10 10

REPEAT for a) Writing and b) Spelling. ADD details where more than one in any category.

GO TO RAVEN'S SPM

PART 4

May we talk now about your education, starting with the time you were going to junior school? 76 Did you ever have any problems reading what the teacher wrote on the blackboard? Mostly...... 1 Sometimes ...... 2 77

Never...... 3

77 Did you ever have any difficulty in hearing what the teachers were saying? Mostly...... 1 Sometimes ...... 2 78

Never...... 3

78 Were you often absent from school for any reason that you couldn't help (not playing truant)? Confirm junior school Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 79

a) If 'Yes', write reason(s): ......

...... Code 79

79 Did you get on well with the other children at school? Yes (all) ...... 1 Yes (some) ...... 2 80 No ...... 3 Can't remember ...... 8

80 How did you mostly spend your playtimes?

Code first to apply On my own ...... 1 a)

With other children ...... 2 81 Can't remember ...... 8 a) Why was that?

Probe Own choice? ...... 1 Peer rejection? ...... 2 81 Peer indifference? ...... 3 Other (specify)? ...... 4

......

81 All children are teased by other children. They are called names to embarrass them; or they are told things that aren't true to see if they believe them. What things can you remember being teased about? Write response:

...... Code 82

82 Bullying is also quite common in schools. Did other children ever bully you? (Physical pain that you didn't deserve, or things that belonged to you being damaged or broken or stolen, for example?) Yes ...... 1 a)

No ...... 2 83 Can't remember ...... 3

a) Have you any idea why they bullied you? Write response:

...... Code 83 83 Did you ever feel that you were different from most other children? Yes ...... 1 a)

No ...... 2 85

Can't remember ...... 3 a) In what way? (Summarise) ......

...... Code 84

84 Was any member of your family unusual in any way? (Write)

...... Code 85

85 Fights between boys at junior school are very common. How often did you get into a fight at that age?

Prompt if necessary Often ? ...... 1 a)

Once in a while?...... 2

Never or almost never? ...... 3 88

a) Why do you think they started? Write response: ......

...... Code 86

86 Everybody gets hurt if they're in a fight. Were you ever hurt seriously in a fight at your junior school? Probe: So seriously that Yes ...... 1 you had to be taken to the 87 No ...... 2 doctor or to hospital? 87 Did you yourself ever seriously hurt another boy in a fight while you were at junior school? Probe: So seriously that Yes ...... 1 they had to be taken to the 88 No ...... 2 doctor or to hospital?

88 Apart from fights, were you ever in an accident during the time you were going to junior school when you: Code had to have stitches? ...... 1 all that had to have your arm or your leg in plaster? ...... 2 apply hurt your head and blacked out? ...... 3 89 needed a surgical operation? ...... 4 NONE of the above 5 CHECK each option: And that happened while you were still at junior school?

Can you tell me about the teachers at your junior school? 89 Were there any teachers that you liked very much? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 90 a) Why did you like them? 90

90 Were there any teachers that you strongly disliked?

Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 a) Why was that?

91 Do you remember how often you had a new class teacher? Was it: Infrequent (e.g. once a year or less) 1 Frequent (e.g. once a term or more) 2 92 Don't remember ...... 3 92 How much interest did your teachers take in how you were getting on at junior school?

A lot ...... 1 Prompt as necessary Moderately interested ...... 2 93 Not very interested...... 3 Not interested at all ...... 4

93 Many children find school quite stressful to begin with, and this creates problems for them, particularly in learning to read and spell. Did you yourself have any problems in learning to read or spell? Reading and spelling...... 1 Reading only...... 2 94

Spelling only ...... 3

Neither ...... 4 95 Comments (if any):

94 Did you get any extra help in reading or spelling?

Code both if applicable Yes, reading ...... 1 a)

Yes, spelling ...... 2

No ...... 3 95 a) Did you go to a special school for help?

Yes ...... 1 P No ...... 2 b) PROBE for duration of help. Write: ...... 95

b) Did you go to a special class for help?

Yes ...... P No ...... 2 c) PROBE for duration of help. Write: ......

c) What sort of extra help did you get? Summarise: ...... 95 ...... Code 95 Did you have any problems with arithmetic? (Clarify if needed: doing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division)

Yes ...... 1 96 No ...... 2

96 Did any of the teachers at your junior school tell you that you were stupid or lazy, or careless?

Yes ...... 1 a)

No ...... 2 97

a) Do you think that was fair? Write response:

...... Code 97

Check: Parents? 97 Did (your parents) take an interest in how you got on at your junior school? Prompt as necessary Yes, a lot ...... 1 Quite interested ...... 2 98 Not very much interest ...... 3 No interest at all ...... 4

98 Did they ever help you with your schoolwork?

Yes ...... 1 99 No ...... 2

99 Did they want you to do better than you knew you could do? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 100

a) How did they show this? Write response: ...... Code 100 CHECK: Siblings? If none, Code N/A and SKIP to 101

100 How about (your brother/s and sister/s): how well did they get on at school? Prompt as necessary Better than me ...... 1 About the same as me ...... 2 101 Not as well as me ...... 3 N/A ...... 9

101 How often did you get into trouble with the teachers when you were at your junior school?

Frequently ...... 1 a)

Not very often ...... 2

Never ...... 3 102 a) Were you ever:

made to stand in the corner? ...... 1 sent out of the classroom? ...... 2 b) suspended? ...... 3 none of these? ...... 4

b) Were you ever moved to another school because of your behaviour? Yes ...... 1 102 No ...... 2

102 Up to the time you left school altogether - left your secondary school - were you ever in trouble with the police?

Probe as necessary Yes, more than once ...... 1 a) Yes, but only once ...... 2

No ...... 3 b) a) How old were you when (or the first time) this happened?

Write response: ...... Code b)

b) Were any of your friends ever in trouble with the police? Yes .. 1 103 No/DK .... 2 103 When you were at (your secondary school), how often did you skive off for the day?

Prompt as necessary Quite a lot ...... 1

Now and then ...... 2 104 Rarely ...... 3 Never ...... 4

104 All in all, how well would you say you did at school?

Prompt as necessary Very well ...... 1 WURS

Fairly well ...... 2

Not as well as I should have done ... 3 105 Not very well ...... 4

105 Do you think you would be in here now if you had done well at school? Yes ...... 1 a)

No ...... 2

DK ...... 8 WURS

a) Why is that? Write: ......

...... WURS

G O T O

W ENDER U TAH R ATING S CALE (SHORT VERSION)

& FRANCESCA HAPPÉ'S STRANGE STORIES

PART 5 106 Can we round things off with some questions beginning with your home life before your arrest? Up to the time that you were arrested, were you living:

Code first that applies alone? ...... 1

with wife/partner/friend? ...... 2 with parents? ...... 3 with in-laws or other relations? ...... 4 107 with friends? ...... 5 with dependent children only? ...... 6 with adult children only? ...... 7 with any other (specify) ...... 8

107 Were you living: Code first that applies

in accommodation that you owned? ...... 1 in self-contained accommodation that you rented? ...... 2 in a bedsit or rooms with shared amenities? ...... 3 a) in a hostel or other temporary accommodation? ...... 4 were you living on the streets? ...... 5 or had you just arrived in this country? ...... 6 Other (specify) ...... 7

a) Which of the photographs comes closest to where you were living? Write type of accommodation: 108 108 At home, at the time you were arrested, did you have:

Running prompt a television set? ...... 01 a fridge? ...... 02 a telephone? ...... 03 a washing machine? ...... 04 a daily newspaper?...... 05 109 a car? ...... 06 a dishwasher? ...... 07 central heating? ...... 08 a stereo or hi-fi? ...... 09 a bookshelf with books in it? ...... 10 a garden? ...... 11 wall-to-wall-carpets? ...... 12

109 In this household, who did the shopping? Write: ...... did the cooking? Write: ...... 110 did the cleaning? Write: ...... paid the bills? Write: ...... Code respondent's role

110 I asked you earlier about accidents, but I didn't cover all the possibilities. Accidents involving motor vehicles are all too common. Have you ever been involved in a motor accident? Probe if necessary: rolled or shunted, ran out of road, hit a pedestrian or another vehicle? Yes ...... 1 111 No ...... 2 112 111 How many times have you been involved in a motor accident? Write estimate: ...... Code a) a) Was that as a passenger or as the driver?

Code either or both Passenger ...... 1 112 Driver ...... 2 b) b) Were you ever the driver responsible for the accident? Yes ...... 1 112 No ...... 2

112 Have you ever been had up for speeding?

Confirm fine or Yes ...... 1 endorsement 113 No (but drives) ...... 2 Does not drive ...... 3

113 Since your eighteenth birthday, have you ever been knocked out? Or hurt your head at work, in a game, in a road accident, or in a fight? Or have you had a stroke? [Code 'Yes' for possible closed head injury] Yes ...... 1 114 No ...... 2

114 Thinking now about your life here, do you feel safe from being injured or bullied by other prisoners? Yes ...... 1 115 No ...... 2 116 115 Are there any particular groups or types of prisoner who you feel are particularly threatening or dangerous to you personally?

Do NOT prompt unbalanced/mental cases ...... 1 sentenced prisoners ...... 2 remand prisoners ...... 3 the ones who think they run the 4 prison ...... 116

black/ethnic minorities ...... 5 racists ...... 6 all of them ...... 7 other (specify) ...... 8

none of them ...... 9

116 Have you ever been to any educational or training classes in this prison? Yes ...... 1 a)

No ...... 2 117 Only just arrived ...... 3 a) What classes are these? Write: ...... Code b)

b) Does attending classes help you in any way? Write: ......

...... Code 118

117 Do you think the classes here would be any help to you?

Yes...... 1 a) No ...... 2

DK ...... 8 118 a) Why is that? Write: ......

...... Code 118 118 In the last two weeks, have you been to the Library here?

Yes ...... 1 ARC No ...... 2

119 Finally, are there any questions that you've thought about since you first answered them, and where you've remembered things you want to add? Or is there any comment you'd like to make about the interview and the assessment tasks?

If 'Yes', write details below. If 'No', thank interviewee and conclude Interview. THEN complete Post-Interview Checklist. P-I C

End Time: ...... POST-INTERVIEW CHECKLIST - INTERVIEWER COMPLETION

120 Did the interviewee have any motor tics involving the:

hair, scalp, or brow

eyes

nose

lips or mouth

h ead, neck, or shoulders

arms, hands, or fingers

torso, thorax, or pelvis

legs or feet

other (complex) Code

121 Did the interviewee have any vocal tics such as:

throat clearing

grunting

gulping

sniffing

snorting

explosive calls

squeaking

pitch fluctuations

words or phrases

animal noises

different voices

other Code 122 Was the respondent, physically speaking: strikingly good-looking? ...... 1 moderately good-looking? ...... 2 ordinary? ...... 3 rather unattractive? ...... 4 definitely unattractive or ugly? ...... 5

123 Was the respondent: friendly, co-operative? ...... 1 willing, passive? ...... 2 unwilling, but compliant ...... 3 unwilling, grudgingly compliant ... 4 restless, fidgety ...... 5

124 Did the respondent appear to enjoy the session? yes ...... 1 unclear ...... 2 no ...... 3

125 Did the respondent appear to find the session stressful? yes ...... 1 unclear ...... 2 no ...... 3

126 Was it possible to complete the tests and interview? Yes...... 1

No: some parts refused by R ...... 2 No; some parts abandoned by I ...... 3 127 How communicative was the respondent? monosyllabic ...... 1 little spontaneous comment ...... 2 moderate spontaneity ...... 3 talkative...... 4 excessively talkative ...... 5

128 Did the respondent have a speech impediment? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 a) Describe:

Code

129 How long did the session last? Hours: ...... Minutes: ...... Code

130 What was the tone of the session? warm, enjoyable, relaxed ...... 1 quite warm, enjoyable...... 2 neutral ...... 3 reserved, tense, slightly unpleasant 4 very awkward or unpleasant ...... 5

131 Did the respondent: 4

speak rhythmically ......

speak melodiously ......

speak pedantically ......

maintain good eye contact ......

use gestures when speaking ...... Code 132 Did the respondent find it hard to understand any of the questions? Yes 1 ...... No ...... 2

133 Did the respondent speak: standard mother-tongue English? 1 ...... standard mother-tongue English with an accent? ...... 2 standard acquired English? 3 ...... standard acquired English with an accent? ...... 4 non-standard mother-tongue English? ...... 5 non-standard acquired English? ...... 6 , 4359

Date . . . . . I . . . . . I . . . . . Cod= . . . . . f . . ...1..... 1 . . . . . 1 . . ...1.....

PRISON READING SURVEY (YOI)

M ICHAEL R ICE

D ARWIN C OLLEGE C AMBRIDGE

Telephone 01223500746 Start Time: ...... Location......

PART 1 I’d like to start by asking you some questwns about your general 1 health Do you ever wear glasses? Yes, all the time ...... 1 Yes, for close work ...... 2 ~.., 3 Yes, for distant viewing/ driving . . . . 3 No, but glasses prescribed ...... 4 No ...... 5 I 2

2 Have you ever had your eyesight checked? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 3

a) Write the most recent appointment ......

3 How about your hearing? Do you normally find it hard to hear what people are saying to you? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 5

a) What age were you when this problem started? Write ...... 4

4 Have you ever been to the doctor’s about your hearing? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 5

a) Were you given any treatment? Write description ...... 5

2

— \ 5 How often do you go to the dentisfs? Prompt as necessary For a regular check-up ...... 1

For treatment only ...... 2 — 6 Never ...... 3

6 Can you tell me if you have ever had Code all that apply asthma? ...... 1 hay fever? ...... 2

eczema? ...... 3 — 7 arthritis? ...... 4 DK/None of these ...... 8

7 Are you taking anything that might affect your concentration today (that’s to say, drugs of any kind)? Yes ...... 1

No ...... 2 — 8 NR ...... 9

8 Do you have any tattoos? Yes ...... 1 a) 2 9

a) Did you do any of the tattooing yourself? Yes ...... 1 ;:. — 9 No ...... 2

9 Do you have full use of your arms and legs? Yes ...... 1 10 2 a)

...... Cod 10

3 10 IS English the only language you speak? Yes ...... 1 BSA 2 a)

a) Has English always beenthe language youspokewithyour parents? Yes ...... 1 BSA No ...... 2 11

11 What other language(s) do you (or did you) speak with your parents? Languagrz ...... European (Roman alphabet) ...... 1 European (Non-Roman) ...... 2 African ...... 3 12 Asian ...... 4 Other ...... 5

12 Do you read and write in (11)? Yes read ...... 1 Yes: write ...... 2 BSA No: neither read nor write ...... 3 D

4 That was thej-irst part of the Intewkro. How do youfiel about if so fir - all right? Good.

We ‘re now going to do thejirst Assessment. The Assessments are all designed to show what people uith a m“de range of abzlities can do. This means that nobody mull be able to do all of the tasks If’s pmfictly normal to find some of the tisks dfjicult. R’s also petfectly normal tojind some thaf you can’f do at aK

I hope you’llfind it interesting. Are you ready?

GO TO BASIC SKILLS AGENCY L. ITERACY ASSESSMENT

5 R EADING A SSESSMENT S CORE S HEET

A Q Anewer c I NIA 1 1 Birmingham National Exhibition Centre or Birmingham NEC or Exhibition Centre or NEC. 2 The Fwm. El EM# 2 1 She wants her to do some shopping for her. 2 Because she is going to be home late. 3 At about 9 o’clock (this evening), El MI

3 1 On the back of the transistor set. 2 The middle (or central) battery. 3 The middle (or central) battery. El Ml 4 1 She was very much the worse for we= or unsteady on her feat. 2 She licked the dregs from the barrel. 3 In a cattery or in Scotland. El EM

5 1 Page 817 (Plumbers). 2 Any of 0819488486 El EM 0819988412 0819985600 0819434525 0819954135 Cellnet (0860) 822285

6 1 There are approxime My 10,000 types of grasses.

2 #my three of whaat, rice, maize, barley, oats& rye.

3 Rye. 4 Ears of wheat are ground into flour. B EM 6 7 1 1970.

2 40% or 21%+ 19%. 3 Because more than one third of the workers who lived in the new town waked to work. El 9

8 1 False.

2 False. 3 True. El El

T OTAL C ORRECT m

L I P M 0 V E M E N T - fir completion during the Interview No movement ...... 1 Almost imperceptible movement ...... 2 Sinmlsted articulation ...... 3

Audible vocalisation ...... B4

For completion after the Intmview is concluded. Performance Criteria Y

1 Both correct. 2 Two or more correct.

3 Two or more correct. 4 Two or more correct.

5 Both correct.

6 Three or more correct. 7 Two or more correct. 8 Two or more correct.

T OTAL OUT OF 8 Ii

7 PART 2 Next, some questions about your everyday life, work, and spare time activities before you were sent down. 13 Can you swim? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 14

14 Can you drive a car? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 15 a) Have you ever taken your driving test? Yes ...... 1 15 No ...... 2 15 15 Have you ever wall-papered a room, or painted it?

Yes ...... 1 — a) No ...... 2 a) Can you cook a family meal by yourself? Yes ...... 1 — 16 No ...... 2

16 Before you came to prison, how often did you go out for a meal?

Prompt as necessary At least once a week...... 1 Less than once a week ...... 2 — 17 Never ...... 3

17 How often did you go out for a drink before you came to prison?

Prompt as necessary More than three times a week ...... 1 — a) Twice a week or less ...... 2 Never ...... 3 18 Check: Never drink at all? a) What’s the tnost you’d normally drink in a session - say, if you were out on a binge? Write ...... (Teetotal ...... ) 0 1 to 3 units of alcohol ...... 1 4 to 10 units of alcohoI ...... 2 11 or more units of alcohol ...... 3 8 18 Have you ever had a bank account with a cheque-book? Yes ...... 1 19 No ...... 2 1-

19 Have you ever had a passport? Yes ...... 1 20 No ...... 2 21

20 Have you travelled to foreign countries? Prompt as necessary Yes, on my own ...... 1 Yes, with others ...... 2 21 No ...... 3 1 21 Have you ever won a prize in a competition? (If ‘Yes’, What did you have to do? ...... Establish if skill or Yes, skill required ...... 1 judgment required Yes, no skill required ...... 2 No ...... 3

,. 22 Have you ever won a a cup or some other trophy or certificate in a sporting event? Yes ...... 1 a) 2 23

23

23 Did you ever get a certificate for passing an examination?

Yes ...... 1 24 No ...... 2 25 24 Which public examinations have you passed?

Prompt City and Guilds? ...... 1 CSE? ...... 2

NVQ? ...... 3 — a) GCSE? ...... 4 A levels? ...... 5 What? Other? ...... 6 a) Where did you take your first public examinations?

At school ...... 1 At college ...... 2 In prison ...... 3

25 Just before you came into prison, did you have any kind of paid work? Yes ...... 1 26 No ...... 2 28

26 What was your job? Write: ...... a) a) Employed ...... 1 b) Self-employed ...... 2 27 b) Manager ...... 1 Foreman/supervisor ...... 2 27 Other ...... 3 1

Unofficial job/ black economy job ...... 999 27

27 How long had you been doing that job? Years Months Weeks

E I 32

10 28 What were you doing just before you came into prison? Unemployed, seeking work ...... 01 29 Unemployed, not seeking work ...... 02 F Waiting to take up a jobf education / training ...... 03 In full-time education ...... 04 Long-term sick ...... 05 If 05, ask Was that because you were doing drugs? Circle the answen Y / N / NA 30 Not working because bringing up a family ...... 06 Living off crime ...... 07 Visiting this country ...... 08

Other ...... 09 1

29 At the time you came to prison, how long had you been unemployed? Years Month weeks m I 31 Never worked ...... 1

30 May I just checlc Have you ever done any paid work? Yes ...... 1 31 No ...... 2 35

1 31 What was the most recent job you were doing? write ...... a) Employed ...... 1 Self-empIoyed ...... 2“

b) Manager ...... 1 . 35 I Foreman/supervisor ...... 2 Other ...... 3

11 Unofficial job/ black economy job ...... 999 35

32 Did your work require you to do any writing (such as filling in timesheets or stocklists, or sending written messages of any kind)? Yes ...... 1 33

No ...... 2 -. 35

33 Did writing at work give you any problems? Yes ...... 34 No ...... 2 35

34 What problems did it give you? Summarise respondent’s difficulties with written tasks ...... Code . . 35

35 In the last three months (or since you have been inside), have you received any letters? Yes ...... 1 2 No ......

36 Have you written any letters (in the last three months)? Yes ...... 1 2 37 No ...... } 37 Have you ever played games where you had to coordinate your hand and your eye? (Accept football and table tennis but also table football and darts.) Yes ...... 1 a) 2 38

a) How would you rate your skill at (name of best game)? Prompt Good ...... 1 Average ...... 2 38 Not all that good ...... 3

12 38 May I ask you a question about your life on the out? What do you normally like doing in your spare time? Do you like Code all that apply Iistening to music? ...... 01 Checlc outside prison? playing a musical instrument? ...... 02 mending things (technical skill) ? . . . 03 making things (craft skiIl)? ...... 04 DIY? ...... 05 fiIms/theatre? ...... 06 Faoourite programmed? watching television? ...... 07 socializing pub/ club /party? ...... 08 a) traveling? ...... 09 tit? collecting things? ...... 10 About what? reading? ...... 11 gardening? ...... 12 looking after animals? ...... 13

Games played? sport (participant)? ...... 14 sport (spectator))? ...... 15 Fruit machines ? Horses? gambfing? ...... 16 other (specify) ...... 17

a) Enter total number of recreations and hobbies ...... I b) b) Code recreations and hobbies as predominantly Aimless, hedonistic ...... 1 Active, self-motivated ...... 2 DAST Creative, reflective ...... 3

GO TO SHEFFIELD DYSLEXIA ADULT SCREENING TEST

13 DAST RESPONSE SHEET CODE . . . . I . . ...1.... t ..,..1 . . ...1..... Rapid Naming Postural stability 1 Minute Reading (B) Tires (sacs) Arms by side Errm Errora 1 Paeeea 2 Last word read Time+ 5xermra (A) Words aaen@ed Arms in front (B) nunber of errors and paaaaa 1 (C) amre (A-B) 2 lime [ (D) Bonus if <60 awonda i I1 1 ., TOTAL I Tota[ (mas 24) I TOTAL (C+D) I

2 Minute Spelling 1 Rainbow @sirr) Hand used 24 2 V@Nam (wafn) Handvdtinq quality 69 3 Marmalade (malade) (gsod/sverage/pcmr) 635 A n.. (h 471a 5 Boat (oaf) Number sompleted 6934 6 Stake (ake) Number of errors 3877 7 Stake (take) Number wrrast 41623 8 Stake (atsv) Add 8 f usedIonlythe 197-4~Q 9 Snail (snay) 9.5+ spellings 10 FISQ (lag) m5278 11 Glow (fJO) 13864175 12 Igloo (iq IA 823961 13 Jarvis Cocker 14 Sean Connery i I&&& 15 Shirley Bassey

Nonsense Passage Reeding 1 Mkwts writing Verbal Fluency In the olden days, a nobactious rennifer set out to craiberg ~ord~ _(A) s . . . . . an enormous - that threatened his Iammeraill country. It was a really graawallv illadonter and after Time —) Bonuw killing it he was chinaersomely tired. But the very next day for ~c~ 2 he set out to Oliaondervock to arat%danter his stettlenab. seconds under ao)(B) On his arrival, he met his bontuvildam at the hiraumling TOTAL station. They were married and lived happily ever after Errors semantic in a frumbunctious cottage in the forest. Penalty (1 point for Fluency each 2 errors) Animals (c)

(A) Real words correct: (mex=59) (B) Nonsense words cwrect (ma~l 5) SCORE (C) SCWS + (A) + 2 X (B) A+a . c Time Bonus/penalty (1 per 2 seca. less/mora than 60 sees. (D) Score afler penaity/bonus (E) Half Score (= half of C) -n-l-. , e-a-l- ,------J m --J r, T--I- ., -r,--- ., I v IFN- avum (g Ieialt!l WI u al w c) 1 IUIHL I lul#iL 14 DA ST SCORE SHEET Code ----- I - . ...1.-... II . . . . . I . . . . . ] . . . . .

First enter the subject’s Score for each subtest in the upper box. Then encircle the corresponding score (or range of scores) in the five columns on the right. Next, enter the total number of circles in each of the columns maked ----. --, and - at the foot of the column. Finally, complete the lower box.

Subteet score ------0 +

1 Rapid Naming 242 35-41 33-34 24-32 <23 2 One Minute Reading O-32 33-79 80-86 87-109 2710 3 Postural Stability 16-24 10-15 5-9 1-4 0 4 Phonemic %gment’n o-9 10-11 12 13-14 75

5 Two-minute Spelling 0-16 17-25 26-27 28-31 232 6 Backwards Span o-2 3 4 5-7 28 0-46 47-63 64-72 73-86 287

9 One Minute Writing 0-16 17-19 20-25 26-32 >33 10 Verbal Fluency (S) O-8 9-f7 12-13 14-18 219 11 Semantic Fluency O-8 9-11 12-74 15-19 220

Column Totils

Subject’s age at testing years f!!Q& Test behaviour mncentration

anxiety

Number with --- (A)

Number with -- (B) Number with - (c) At risk score (3xA) + (2xB) + C _ (D) Screening Diagnosis At Risk Quotient(D)/10 (E) I

15 PART3 39 I’d lzke to ask you now about your early years, yourjizmily, and your chikihooa’ home. k that all right? If R assents: From when you were born until you left school, who was it you lived with? Both parents ...... 01 Probe fully One parent ...... 02 and code ~ that apply, One step-parent and parent ...... 03 with R’s age. A step-parent only ...... 04 — 40 Adopted parents ...... 05 Grandparent(s) ...... 06 Other relative ...... 07 Foster parents ...... 08 None of these ...... 09

40 Have you got any brothers or sisters? No. of brothers ...... I Probe brothers, or No. of sisters ...... I half-brothers? I No. of half-brothers ...... — a) No. of half-sisters ...... I No. of step/adopted brothers ...... 1 No. of step/adopted sisters ...... I Only child ...... 99 41

a) How many of your brothers and sisters are older than you? Reply: ...... So you’re the ( ) child of the family? Code I 41

41 What age were you at your last birthday? Respondent’s age now ...... I NR ...... 99 1- 42 42 Do you know what age your mother was at her last birthday? (Birth mother) Mother’s age now (write) I

NR ...... 99 43 I Compute Mother’s age when R born ...... F 16 43 Up to the time you started school, who looked after you? Mother ...... 1 44 Other (specify) ...... 2

44 Up to the age of 16, were you ever taken into care, or did you spend time in a borstal, an approved school, or a young offender unit? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 45 a) Why was that? [1 Criminal offence, 2 Family problems, 3 Truancy, 4 Beyond parental control, 5 Other, 6 DK.I Code 45

45 Can you tell me about where you lived when you were about eIeven - your last year at junior school? Was it a house, or a flat, or what? (Use the photographs if necessary.) Write respondent’s choice or description ...... Code 46 “

46 When you were about eleven years old, did your home have

Running prompt a television set? ...... 01 a fridge? ...... 02 a telephone? ...... 03 CSX!e a washing machine? ...... 04 a) Total . ..1... a daiIy newspaper? ...... 05

b) Daily newpaper 1 a car? ...... 06 — 47 No &Ily paper 2 a dishwasher? ...... 07 c) Books on a shelf 1 central heating? ...... 08 No books on a shelf 2 a stereo or hi-fi? ...... 09 a bookshelf with books in it? ...... 10 a garden?...... 11 wall-to-wall-carpets? ...... 12

17

May we tilk about you now? Everyone does things that are wrong when they are small children. 52 Did the grown-ups ever become angry if you did the wrong thing accidentally - like dropping something and breaking it, or like losing something? Yes ...... 1 53 No ...... 2 F 53 Before you first went to school, how often did you do things that you knew were naughty? Quite often ...... 1 Not very often ...... 2 a) Can you remember any of the naughty things that you did? Write examples ...... Code

54 Did anything happen to you when (your parents) found out you had been naughty? No parental reponse ...... 1 PROBE Verbal (explanatory) ...... 2

Code all that apply Verbal (angry) ...... 3 . 55 Corporal punishment (token) ...... 4 Corporal punishment (harsh) ...... 5 Deprivation (emotional) ...... 6 Deprivation (material) ...... 7 Other (specify) ...... 55 ...... Code

55 Did you generally know what you risked if (your parents) found out you had done something wrong?

PROBE for erratic or Yes ...... 1 inconsistent punishment 56 No ...... 2 }

19 I May we move@urard in time, to when you were a teenager - say, about @rteen o~fifieen years old? 56 When you went out, did (your parents) tell you what time they wanted you to be home again?

Yes ...... 1 No ...... 2

57 If you came back late, what happened then? Kept indoors ...... 1 Told off ...... 2 Hit or given a good hiding ...... 3 58 Nothing at all ...... 4 Locked out ...... 5 Always in on time ...... 6

58 Did you ever think about running away from home? 1 Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 59

a) Did circumstances ever cause you to run away? Yes ...... 1 59 No ...... 2 h

59 Back to your (parents). Did (they) get any academic qualifications? The sort of things I mean are Father i’iother Degree ...... 1 1 Diploma (eg SIN) ...... 2 2

A level/HND ...... 3 3

0 level/OND ...... 4 4

Code highest GCSE ...... 5 5 60 CSE ...... 6 6

City & Guilds ...... 7 7

Other (specify) ...... 8 8

DK/ Nothing ...... 9 9 [ 20 1 1 expect you ‘ve heard that, by the age of thirty, about one man in three has been convicted of a criminal oflence of one kind or another. 60 Have (your parents) or any other members of your family ever been convicted of an offence? Probe if necessary Do you think they have? Yes ...... 1 61 No ...... 2 62 DK ...... 8 t

61 Which members of your family have been convicted? (b) Parent ...... 1 1 Code all that Step-parent ...... 2 2

apply Grandparent ...... 3 3 Brother/Sister ...... 4 4 Uncle/Aunt ...... 5 5 a) Cousin ...... 6 6 Son/Daughter ...... 7 7 Non-blood-relation/ in-laws ...... 8 8 Other (specify) ...... 9 9

a) Have any of these served time? Yes ...... 1 b) No ...... 2 62

b) Ask or record Which members? Encircle in grid above 62 I

CODE a) 10nly one, 2 Two or more convicted CODE b) 10nly one, 2 Two or more sentenced

21

—.. Many people suffmj+om clinical dspresswn at some time in their lives. 62 Has any member of your family ever been clinically depressed? I mean rmy depressed, for days or weeks at a time. Probe for medical Yes and sought medical attention . . . 1 a) attention or hospital treatment Yes but no medical attention ...... 2 } No ...... 13 c) a) Which member(s)? Write: ...... b) ...... I b) How did this affect you? Write: ...... c) ......

c) Before you came to prison, did you yourself ever get clinically depressed? Probe Yes and sought medical attention . . . 1 Yes but no medical attention ...... 2 63 No ...... 3

63 One of the things that can depress people is frequent change of address. Up to the time you left school, did (your family) always live at the same address? Yes ...... 1 65 No ...... 2 64

64 When you changed your address, did you also change from one school to another? Yes ...... 1 a) &b) No ...... 2 Can you tell me how many different schools you went to?

a) Junio~ ...... 65 b) Senior ......

22 CHECK (Parents?)

65 Lef’s think abouf readingjbr a momenf. When you were a boy, did you ever see your (father) reading to himself? Yes ...... a) 66

a) What sort of things did he read? Write answen ......

and code as Newspapers, magazines, or other ephemera ...... 66 Books for recreation fiction, hobbies ...... Books for further study or related to his work ......

66 When you were a boy, did you ever see your (mother) reading to herself? Yes ...... a)

No ...... 67

a) What sort of things did she read? Write answen ......

and code as 65 67

67 When you were a boy, did anyone ever read to you ? Yes ...... 1 68 No ...... 2 70

68 Who was it who read to you? Code all that apply Mother ...... 1 but give priority to Father ...... 2 69 Mother on Transfer Sister/ brother ...... 3 Sheet Other (specify) ...... 4 I

23 69 Did you like being read to?

Yes ...... 1 No ...... 2 71 It depended on (specify) ...... 3 F 70 Did you ever wish that somebody would read to you?

Yes ...... 1 71 No ...... 2 DK ...... 8 F n Do any members of your family have problems with reading?

a) b) Read Write H Code any Parent ...... 01 01 01 that apply. Step-parent ...... 02 02 02

Do NOT Grandparent ...... 03 03 03

prompt. Brother/Sister ...... 04 04 04 Uncle/Aunt ...... 05 05 05

Cousin ...... 06 06 06

Son/Daughter ...... 07 07 07

Non blood relation/ in-laws . . . . . 08 08 08

Other (specify) ...... 09 09 09

No-one ...... 10 10 10 Enter Codes REPEAT for a) Writing and b) Spelling. ADD details where more than one in any category. CODE Parent 1, Sibling 2, Other 3 -in order of priority.

GO TO RAVEN’S SPM

24 SCORE SHEET fw SHORTER RAVEN SpM (YOI)

Time discreetly by w“stuwtch

Start ......

Finish: ......

Time in minutes: ......

ET ITEMS ITEM NUMBERS T I A 7 1 2 4 5 7 9 11 I

I

~ I B6 2 4 5 7 9 12 I I 1! I I I I I I i I r I I I

Cl 6 III 131 151 171 191 1111 I I 8

I i

I

E 5 2 4 5 8 12 6 2 1 6 5

30 TOTAL II II

, L PART 4

May we tilk now about your education, starting with the time you were going to junior school? 72 Did you ever have any problems reading what the teacher wrote on the blackboard? Mosfly ...... 1 Sometimes ...... 2 73 Never ...... 3

1, 73 Did you ever have any difficulty in hearing what the teachers were saying? Mostly ...... 1

Sometimes ...... 2 — 74 Never ...... 3 1 -

74 Were you often absent from school for any reason that you couldn’t help (not playing truant)? Confirm M school Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 75

a) If ‘Yes’, write reason(s) ...... Code 79

75 Did you get on weff with the other children at school? Yes (all) ...... 1

Yes (some) ...... 2 — 76 No ...... 3 Can’t remember ...... 8

76 How did you mostly spend your playtimes? Code first to apply On my own ...... 1 a)

With other children ...... 2 — 77 Can’t remember ...... 8

26 a) Why was that?

Probe Own choice? ...... 1 Peer rejection? ...... 2 77 Peer indifference? ...... 3 Other (specify)? ...... 4 ...... 1

77 All children get teased by other children. They are called names to embarrass them; or they are told things that aren ‘t true to see zfthey believe them. What things can you remember being teased about? Write response ...... Code Physical features ...... 1 78 Mamerisms ...... 2 Other attribute ...... 3

78 Bullying is also quite common in schools. Did other children ever 1 bully you? (Physical pain that you didn’t deserve, or things that belonged to you being damaged or broken or stolen, for example?) .-. . Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 79 Can’t remember ...... 3 t I a) Have you any idea why they btied YOU? Write response ......

Code Physical features ...... 1 Mamerisms ...... 2 79 Other attribute ...... 3 1

27 79 Did you ever feel that you were diflment from most other children? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 81 Can’t remember ...... 3 a) In what way? (Summarise) ......

I 80 Was any member of your family unusual in any way? (Write)

81

81 Fights between boys at junior school are very common. How often did you get into a fight at that age?

Prompt if necessary Often ? ...... 1 a) Once in a while? ...... 2

Never or almost never? ...... 3 84

a) Why do you think they started? Write responsv......

Code . 82 Everybody gets hurt ifthey’re in a Jight. Were you ever hurt seriously in a fight at your junior school? Probe: So seriously that Yes ...... 1 you had to be taken to the 83 No ...... 2 doctor or to hospital? t 83 Did you yoursel~ever seriously hurt another boy in a fight while you were at junior school? Prob= So seriously that Yes ...... 1 they had to be taken to the 84 No ...... 2 doctor or to hospital? t

28 84 Apart from fights, were you ever in an accident during the time you were going to junior school when you:

Code had to have stitches? ...... 1 85 highest had to have your armor your leg in plaster? ...... 2 85 hurt your head and blacked out? ...... 3 a) NONE of the above 4 85 I CHECK each option: And that happened while you were still at junior school? IF 3 has been coded, ask a) How long were you unconscious?

I Less than half an hour ...... 1 Between half an hour and six hours ...... I 2 — 85 Over six but less than twenty-four hours ...... 3 More than twenty-four hours ...... 4

Can you tell me about the teachers at your junior school? 85 Were there any teachers that you liked very much?

Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 86 a) Why did you like them?

86

86 Were there any teachers that you strongly disliked?

Yes ...... 1 — a) No ...... 2 a) Why was that?

87 Do you remember how otlen you had a new class teacher? Was ik

Infrequent (e.g. once a year or less) 1 — Frequent (e.g. once a term or more) 2 88 Don’t remember ...... 3

29

.—

91 Did you have any problems with arithmetic? (Clarify if needed doing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) Yes ...... 1 92 No ...... 2 ) 92 Did any of the teachers at your junior school tell you that you were stupid or lazy, or careless? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 F 93 — a) Do you think that was fair? Write response

...... Code 93

Check Parents? 93 Did (your parents) take an interest in how you got on at your junior school? Prompt as necessary Yes, a lot ...... 1 Quite interested ...... 2 94 Not very much interest ...... 3 No interest at all ...... 4 I 94 Did they ever help you with your schoolwork? Yes ...... 1 No ...... 2

95 Did they want you to do better than you knew you could do? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 96

a) How did they show this? Write response...... Code 96

31 CHECK Siblings? If none, Code N/A and SKIP to 97

96 How about (your brother/s and sister/ s): how well did they get on at school? Prompt as necessary Better than me ...... 1 About the same as me ...... 2 97 Not as well as me ...... 3 N/A...... 9 97 How often did you get into trouble with the teachers when you 1 were at your junior school?

Frequently ...... 1 a) Not very often ...... 2 t Never ...... 3 98 a) Were you ever

smacked? ...... 1 suspended? ...... 2 b) neither of those? ...... 3 1 b) Were you ever moved to another junior school because of your behaviour? Yes ...... 1 I 98 No...... 2 98 Up to the time you left school altogether - left your secondary school - were you ever in trouble with the police?

Probe as necessary Yes, more than once ...... 1 — a) Yes, but only once ...... 2

No...... 3 b) a) How old were you when (or the first time) this happened?

Code 1 Tenor under, 2 Eleven or twelve, b) 3 Thirteen or fourteen, 4 Fifteen or sixteen b) Were any of yourji-iends ever in trouble with the police? Yes . . 1 — 99 No/DK . . . . 2

32 99 When you were at your secondary school(s), how often did you skive off for the day?

Prompt as necessary Quite a lot ...... 1

Now and then ...... 2 — 100 Rarely ...... 3 Never ...... 4

100 All in all, how weU would you say you did at school?

Prompt as necessary Very well ...... 1 WURS

Fairly well ...... 2

Not as well as I should have done . . 3 101 Not very well ...... 4

101 Do you think you would be in here now if you had done well at school? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 t DK ...... 8 WURS

a) Why is that? Write ......

WURS

GOTO

W ENDER U TAH R ATING S CALE (SHORT VERSION)

&

FRANCESCA HAPPJ?S STRANGE STORIES

33 W(A7S SCORE SHEET Please classijj each cm-d, as there will be further analyses.

34 STRANGE STORIES SCORE SHEET

A Jay’s Birthday Present Is it true, what Jay said? Yes 0 No 1 Why did he say that to his friend? Transcribe:

Score out of thre[ B Del’s Dinner Is it true, what Deh mother said? Yes 0 No 1 Why did Del’s mother say that? Transm”be:

Score out of thret c The Hidden Tanks Is it true, what the prisoner said? Yes 2 No 0 Where will the Red army look for the Blue army’s tanks? By the sei 2 In the mountain! 0 Why did the prisoner say what he said? Transcribe

Score out of thref D Jason Does-It-Himself What does Jason’s father mean? Does he mean Jason is stupid or clever? Cleve] 0 Stupid 1 What does Jason’s brother mean? Does he mean Jason is clever or stupid? Cleve] 0 Stupic 1 E Darren Stays the Night What did Mandy’s mum mean when she asked Darren if he was sure he wanted to stay? She didn’t want hlm to stay, or didn’t think he should stay 4 Other 0 Did Mandy’s dad think Darren was bright or not? Transm”be

Score one or nil Total Score 35 Intension~l sentenc(?s 5 c o R E s H E E T

1 If Gerry helps Jim, who does the helping? Gerry 1 Jim 2 NR/DK 8 — 2 If the boy standing beside the old woman wore a straw hat, who wore the straw hat? The boy 1 The old woman 2 NR/DK 8 — 3 If Dave promises that Phil gets the tickets, who gets the tickets? Phil 1 Dave 2 NR/DK 8 — 4 If a girl watches an artist drawing a picture of a young man running away, who mns away? A young man 1 A girl 2 An artist 3 NR/DK 8 — 5 If John is pushed by Tony, who does the pushing? Tony 1 John 2 NR/DK 8 . 6 If Julie promises Den to fetch the kettle, who fetches the kettle? Julie 1 Den 2 NR/DK 8 — 7 if a girl watching a photographer taking a picture of an Olympic hurdler runs away, who runs away? The girl 1 The photographer 2 The hurdler 3 NR/DK 8

NUMBER OF T] MES SCORING 1

36 PART 5 102 When I asked you about acadents a few minutes ago, I didn’t cover all the possibilities. Accidents involving motor vehicles are quite common. Have you ever been involved in a motor accident? [Probe if necessary: rolled or shunted, ran out of road, hit a pedestrian or another vehicle?]

Yes ...... 1 103 No ...... 2 104

103 How many times have you been involved in a motor accident? Write estimate ...... Code a) a) Was that as a passenger or as the driver? t Code either or both Passenger ...... 1 104 Driver ...... 2 b) b) Were you ever the driver responsible for the accident? Yes ...... 1 104 No ...... 2 E

I 104 Have you ever been had up for speeding? Confirm fine or Yes ...... 1 endorsement 105 No (but drives) ...... 2

Does not drive ...... 3 t

105 Since your sixteenth birthday, have you ever been knocked out? Or hurt your head at work, in a game, in a road accident, or in a fight? Or have you had a stroke? [Code ‘Yes’ for possible closed head injury] Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 106

37 a) How long were you unconscious? Less than half anhour ...... 1

Between half an hour and six hours ...... 2 — 106 Over six but less than twenty-four hours ...... 3 More than twenty-four hours ...... 4

106 Thinking now about your life here, do you feel safe from being injured or bullied by other prisoners?

Yes ...... 1 107 No ...... 2 108

107 Are there any particular groups or types of prisoner who you feel are particularly threatening or dangerous to you personally? Do NOT prompt unbalanced/ mental cases ...... 1 sentenced prisoners ...... 2 remand prisoners ...... 3 the ones who think they run the 4 prison ...... 108 black/ethnic minorities ...... 5 racists ...... 6 all of them ...... 7 other (specify) ...... 8 none of them ...... 9

108 Do you go to any educational or training classes in this YO1? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 109 Only just arrived ...... 3 a) What classes are these? Write ...... Code b) b) Does attending classes help you in any way? Write ...... Code 110

38 109 Do you think the classes here would be any help to you? Yes ...... 1 a) No ...... 2 DK ...... 8 110 a) Why is that? Write ......

...... 110

110 In the last two weeks, have you been to the Library here? Yes ...... 1 ARC No ...... 2

111 Finally, are there any questions that you’ve thought about since you first answered them, and where you’ve remembered things you want to add? Or is there any comment you’d like to make about the interview and the assessment tasks?

(If ‘Yes’, write details below. If ‘No’, thank interviewee and conclude Interview. THEN complete Post-Interview Checklist.) P-I C

Timeended ......

.

39 POST-INTERVIEW CHECKLIST - INTERVIEWER COMPLETION

112 Was the respondent, physically speaking strikingly good-looking? ...... 1 moderately good-looking? ...... 2

ordinary? ...... 3 rather unattractive? ...... 4 definitely unattractive or ugly? ...... 5

113 Was the respondent 1 friendly, co-operative? ...... willing, passive? ...... 2 unwillin~ but compliant ...... 3 unwillin& grudgingly compliant . . . . 4 restless, fidgety ...... 5

114 Did the respondent appear to enjoy the session? yes ...... 1 unclear ...... 2 no ...... 3

115 Did the respondent appear to find the session stressful? yes ...... 1 unclear ...... 2 3

116 Was it possible to complete the tests and interview? Yes ...... 1 No: some parts refused by R ...... 2 No; some parts abandoned by 1 ...... 3

40 117 How communicative was the respondent? monosyllabic ...... 1 little spontaneous comment ...... 2 moderate spontaneity ...... 3 talkative ...... 4 excessively talkative ...... 5

118 Did the respondent have a speech impediment? 1 Yes ...... a) I No ...... 2 a) Describe Code

119 How long did the session last? -r Code in minutes E

120 What was the tone of the session? warm, enjoyable, relaxed ...... 1 quite warm, enjoyable ...... 2 neutral ...... 3 reserved, tense, slightly unpleasant 4 very awkward or unpleasant ...... 5

121 Did the respondent !/

speak rhythmic+ ...... - speak melodiously ......

speak pedantim~ly ...... maintain good eye contact ......

use gestures when .Espeaking ...... Code

41 122 Did the respondent find it hard to understand any of the questions? 1 Yes ...... No ...... 2

123 Did the respondent speak standard mother-tongue English? ...... 1 standard mother-tongue English with an accent? ...... 2 standard acquired English? ...... 3 standard acquired English with an accent? ...... 4 non-standard mother-tongue English? ...... 5 non-standard acquired English? ...... 6

124 What ethnic group did he (appear to) belong to? Afro-Caribbean ...... 1 Caucasian - northern European ...... 2 Caucasian - southern European ...... 3 Underline Indian/Pakistani/ Chinese ...... 4 Specify Other ...... 5

125 What height did he appear to be? Short (under 5’ 7“) ...... 1 Medium (5’ S“to5’10”) ...... 2

Tall (5’ 11“ to 6’ 1“) ...... 3 Very tall (6’ 2“ or over) ...... 4

Please - the Interviewee’s Prison Number here:

42 1nten7iewer’s Notes

)

.

~

1 43 M ICHAEL R ICE . D ARWIN C OLLEGE . CA MB RiDGE CB3 9EU - E NGLAND

F EBRUARY 1998 Author Recognition Checklist

BELOW, YOU WILL SEE a list of 100 names. Some of the people in the list are popular writers (of books, magazine articles, and/or newspaper columns), and some are not. Please read the names and put a tick next to the names of those people whom you know to be writers. Do not guess, but only tick the ones you know to be writers. (Remember, some of the names are people who are not popular writers, so guessing can easily be detected.)

Name 4 Name 4 Chinua ACHEBE Len DEIGHTON Douglas ADAMS John DENNY Caspar ADDYMAN Colin DEXTER G. Scott AIKENS Philip K. DICK Abayomi ALAWODE A. Conan DOYLE Brian ALDISS Markus ENGELHARD Isaac ASIMOV David P. FARRINGTON David ATTENBOROUGH Guy FITHEN Alex BAER Ian FLEMING Iain BANKS Colin FORBES H. E. BATES Frederick FORSYTH Nick BAYLIS Dick FRANCIS Harry BHADESHIA Loraine GELSTHORPE Alan BLACKWELL Winston GRAHAM A. E. BOTTOMS Zane GREY Ben BOWLING Nikolaus GRIGORIEFF William BOYD Arthur HAILEY Edward CHRISTOW Robert HARRIS Arthur C. CLARKE Max HASTINGS Al CODY Frank HERBERT Patricia CONNELL James HERBERT Shirley CONRAN Leo HOWE Sarah CUNDY Hammond INNES Roald DAHL P. D. JAMES Henderson DALRYMPLE Jared JONES

375 Name 4 Name 4 Garrison KEILLOR Richard QUESNEL Jonathan KELLERMAN Leon RADZINOWICZ Dean KOONTZ Harry RENWICK Stilianos KOUNDOUROS Sue REX George KUO David ROBBINS Carlo LAING Harold ROBBINS John LE CARRE Gerry ROSE Elmore LEONARD Axel SANDVIG Geoffrey LLOYD Wilbur SMITH Richard MABEY Tim SOLLICK Ed MCBAIN Sean SWEENY G. MACDONALD FRASER Leslie THOMAS Alistair MACLEAN Simon TILBURY Nigel MCNAIR SCOTT Peter TINNISWOOD Thomas MANKE J. R. R. TOLKIEN John MANUEL Thomas TRYON Michael MOORCOCK Nigel WALKER Jason MOORE Stephen D. WANT Grant MUIR Keith WATERHOUSE Rua MURRAY H. G. WELLS David NOBBS Morris WEST Ben OKRI D. J. WEST James OLESON Chester WHITE J.-H. PARK Ben WOODLEY Terry PRATCHETT Davin YAP

Thank you very much for completing the checklist. Michael Rice

375 Strange Storiesm

Jay’s Birthday Present

Jay spent weeks waiting for his birthday, because he thought the friend who was the Most Important Person in his life would give him a smart new pair of trainers. He wanted new trainers more than anything else. At last his birthday arrived, and he unwrapped the box the Most Important Person in his life had given him. He felt sure it would contain the best pair of trainers he’d ever owned. But when he opened it, with his friend standing by his side, he found his present was just a boring old pair of brown shoes, which he did not want at all! Still when the Most Important Person asked him how he liked his birthday present, Jay said, ‘They’re perfect. Thank you; they’re just what I wanted.’

Is it true, what Jay said? Yes 0 No 1 Why did he say that to his friend? Transcribe:

Score out of three Del’s Dinner

Del's mother had spent a long time cooking his favourite meal: steak and chips. But when she brought it in to the room, he was watching television, and he didn’t even even look up or say thank you. Del's mother was cross and said, ‘Well that’s very nice isn’t it! That’s what I call politeness!’

Is it true, what Del’s mother said? Yes 0 No 1 Why did Del’s mother say that? Transcribe:

Score out of three

378 The Hidden Tanks

During the war, the Red army captured a member of the Blue army. They wanted him to tell them where his army's tanks were; they knew the tanks were either by the sea or in the mountains. They knew that the prisoner would not want to tell them; he would want to save his army, and so he would certainly lie to them. The prisoner was very brave and very clever. He would not let them find his tanks. The tanks were really in the mountains. So, when the other side asked him where his tanks were, he said, ‘They are in the mountains.’

Is it true, what the prisoner said? Yes 2 No 0 Where will the Red army look for the Blue army’s tanks? By the sea 2 In the mountains 0 Why did the prisoner say what he said? Transcribe:

Score out of three Jason Does-It-Himself

Jason is helping his father to paint a cupboard door. Dad tells him to put some white spirit on the door. But stupid Jason doesn't wipe the white spirit on with a rag - he just puts the bottle on top of the door! When Dad comes back and sees what Jason has done, he says: ‘Your head must be made of wood!’

Just then, Jason’s brother comes in. He sees what Jason has done and says: ‘Brilliant brain, our Jason!’

/ . . . . .

378 What does Jason’s father mean? Does he mean Jason is stupid or clever? Clever 0 Stupid 1 What does Jason’s brother mean? Does he mean Jason is clever or stupid? Clever 0 Stupid 1 Darren Stays the Night

One evening, Darren went round to see Mandy, his girl-friend, who lived about half a mile away. While he was there, it started to rain very heavily. It was still raining hard at half-past eleven, when Mandy’s mum and dad were hoping that Darren would realise how late it was and go home. But Mandy said to them, ‘Mum, it’s still raining. Let Darren stay the night.’ ‘Are you sure you want to stay, Darren?’ Mandy’s mum asked him. ‘Okay,’ said Darren. ‘Won’t be a minute,’ and he hurried out of the room.

Twenty minutes later, the doorbell rang. Outside stood Darren, breathless and dripping wet. ‘Just went home to get my toothbrush,’ he explained.

When they were alone in the kitchen, Mandy’s dad said to her mum, ‘She's got a bright one there, all right. Brain of Britain, that one is.’

What did Mandy’s mum mean when she asked Darren if he was sure he wanted to stay? She didn’t want him to stay, or didn’t think he should stay 4 Other 0 Did Mandy’s dad think Darren was bright or not? Transcribe

Score one or nil

Total Score

378 DAST Norms 15.5 - 16.5 years (for V1.2)

------0 + RAPID >=42 35-41 33-34 24-32 <=23 NAMING ONE MINUTE 0-32 33-79 80-86 87-109 >=110 READING POSTURAL 16-24 10-15 6-9 1-5 0 STABILITY PHONEMIC 0-7 8-9 10 11-12 13 SEGMENTATION TWO MINUTE 0-16 17-25 26-27 28-31 >=32 SPELLING BACKWARDS 0-2 3 4 5-7 >=8 SPAN NONSENSE 0-46 47-63 64-72 73-86 >=87 PASSAGE ONE MINUTE 016 17-19 20-25 26-32 >=33 WRITING VERBAL 0-8 9-11 12-13 14-18 >=19 FLUENCY SEMANTIC 0-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 >=20 FLUENCY

SCORING

- - - scores3 - - scores2 - scores1

AT RISK QUOTIENT

Sum the scores and divide by 10.

REFERRAL THRESHOLD

0.7

Wender Utah Rating Scale

Here is a set of cards that I'd like you to sort into three piles.

Each of the cards says something that might have been true of you when you were younger - say, between the ages of four and fourteen.

I'd like you to read the cards to yourself, one at a time, and the decide which pile to put in on.

If what the card says isn't true of you at all, or was only very rarely true, it goes on this pile with the cross and the faint tick.

If what the card says is quite true of you, or was true sometimes but not always, it goes on the pile with the medium-sized tick.

And if what the card says is very true of you, or was true quite a lot of the time, it goes on the pile with the large tick.

So, if you have a card that says something that was true about you sometimes, but not always, which pile should you put it on? (Medium-sized tick)

And if what it says was almost never true about you, which pile should it go on? (Cross and faint tick)

Okay? Just ask me if you get a card you're not sure about. I’ll hand them to you one at a time. W ENDER UTAH RATING SCALE - selected items

PRISON READING SURVEY Date.....|....|.... Code....|....|....||....|....|....

Not at all like me, or only very Quite like me. Very much like As a child, I (was or had): slightly. me.

1 Active, restless, always on the go

2 Concentration problems, was easily distracted

3 Anxious, worried

4 In trouble with authorities, in trouble at school

5 Nervous, fidgety

6 Inattentive, daydreaming

7 Hot- or short-tempered, with a low boiling-point 8 Trouble seeing things from somebody else's point of view

9 Temper outbursts, tantrums

10 Trouble finishing things I had started

11 Reckless, a dare-devil, doing things for kicks

12 Leader, bossy (FOIL)

13 Teased other children 14 Dissatisfied with life, didn't get a kick out of things

15 Disobedient to parents, rebellious, defiant

16 Irritable

17 Sloppy, disorganised

18 Ran away from home

19 Angry

20 Well-organised, tidy, neat (FOIL)

21 Tended to be immature

22 Lost control of myself

23 Felt guilty or regretful