CALYPSOS PROJECT
INTELLECTUAL OUTPUTS 2 & 3
ERASMUS+
2016-1-ES01-KA204-025656 1
STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE SPECIFIC NEEDS FOR EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT IN PRISON STUDENTS
COORDINATION: JUAN GARCÍA GARCÍA [email protected] ANA MARÍA MARTÍN RODRÍGUEZ [email protected]
AUTHORS: Juan García García1, Ana María Martín Rodríguez2, Rui João Abrunhosa Gonçalves3, Silvia Cataldi4, María Dolores Roldán Tapia1, Ana Rita Cruz3, Marino Bonaiuto4, Flor Zaldívar Basurto1, Claudia Héctor Moreira2, Elena Ortega Campos1, Adelina Estévez Monzó2, Ana Cunha3, Leticia De la Fuente Sánchez1, María del Rosario Ortiz González2, Virginia Alves3 1University of Almería (Spain) 2University of La Laguna (Spain) 3 Universidade do Minho (Portugal) 4Universitá La Sapienza di Roma (Italy)
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 a) Educational performance, cognitive functioning and criminal behaviour ... 3 b) Executive Function and Criminal Behaviour ...... 9 c) Meta-analysis of the relationship between adult criminal behaviour and executive functions...... 12 2 2. EMPIRICAL STUDIES ...... 22
a) General methodology of intellectual products 2 y 3 ...... 22 b) Results of Intellectual Product 2 ...... 31 c) Results of Intellectual Product 3 ...... 39 d) Discussion of the results of Intellectual Products 2 & 3 ...... 49 3. CONCLUSION ...... 53
a) The context of intervention in Adult Education in Prison ...... 53 b) The training of executive functions in the school context and its application …………………………………………………………………………………...59 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ...... 65
Appendix: Tests used according to country and technical specifications for the evaluation of executive functions ...... 76
Description of intellectual products ……….………………………………………82
DISCLAIMER
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
1- INTRODUCTION
The report presented contains the results for outputs 2 and 3 of the project. Output 2 refers to the neuropsychological evaluation study of the Special Educational Support Needs (SESN) functions of adult inmate students in the four reference prisons compared to standardized peers. Output 3 refers to the neuropsychological assessment of the executive functions of students in prison compared to peers 3 who have passed through the juvenile justice system and with standardized peers. The objective is to give a unitary character to the products financed by Erasmus+, grouping them under the title "Study of the relationship between criminal behaviour and executive functions and their impact on the Special Educational Support Needs of students in penitentiary centres".
a) Educational performance, cognitive functioning and criminal behaviour
The relationship between delinquency and education analyses the process by which learners gradually disassociate themselves from school and become more and more involved in criminal behaviour (Christle, Jolivette & Nelson, 2005). Educational problems are an important risk factor in the origin and control of criminal acts (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Low educational attainment has been associated with both crime and recidivism rates (Leone et al., 2003), so that the higher the literacy and educational attainment the lower the rates of crime and recidivism (Keith & McCray, 2002). School performance influences recidivism, understood not only as behaviour, performance and attendance, but also as a belief in the value of education, in which the school provides a stimulating environment and in which the person can feel a certain sense of well-being by interacting with teachers. Therefore, perceptions and beliefs about the school and educators should be taken into account as much as improved school behaviour and grades (Baglivio, Wolff, Jackowski & Greenwald, 2015).
Although juvenile delinquents have been found to have lower overall academic performance than their peers of the same age (Thompson & Morris, 2016), most studies have focused almost exclusively on academic performance. Since the early 1950s, about 85% of juvenile offenders have been known to perform worse academically than their normalized peers (Glueck & Glueck, 1950). In a subsequent study, Thompson & Morris (2013) found that less than half of a sample of more than 1,000 juvenile delinquents had passed literacy and math tests for 4 their age. There is now no doubt that poor academic performance is systematically associated with delinquency, both that which is limited to adolescence and that which appears late or persists throughout the life cycle (Jolliffe, Farrington, Piquero, Loeber & Hill, 2017). This lower academic performance has been linked to learning difficulties that limit students' ability to understand complex information and also cause them problems in carrying out everyday tasks. In a study carried out by Alm & Andersson (1997), with 61 prisoners aged between 18 and 67, it was found that all of them had a background of reading and writing problems, detected through spelling, reading comprehension and reading speed tests. Thirty-one per cent of them had dyslexia. This percentage was 41% for Jensen, Lindgren, Meurling, Ingvar & Levander (1999) and 62% for Lindgren, Dalteg, Wirsén-Meurling & Ingvar (2002). These last authors also found that 55% of the inmates had received a diagnosis of ADHD, which led them to conclude that the inmates' school failure could be caused by these dyslexia and ADHD problems. This opinion is shared by Talbot & Riley (2007) for whom the percentage of inmates with learning difficulties or attention deficit disorder (ADHD) was between 20% and 30%. In terms of the relationship between academic achievement and recidivism, Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang & Spann (2008) state that the highest recidivism rates are among inmates with the lowest academic standards. Education in prison has also been shown to reduce recidivism (Davis et al., 2013; Kim & Clark, 2013). But this relationship between academic performance and recidivism can be spurious because most prisoners belong to more vulnerable social groups, with little knowledge and skills, groups at greater risk of exclusion from the labour market,
poverty, debt, drug use and lack of an adequate social network. These shortcomings are not only related to their poor academic performance, but also result in fewer job opportunities when they are released (Roth, Asbjørnsen & Manger, 2017). Lack of employment makes it more likely that people who have served prison sentences will depend exclusively on social benefits and will reoffend (Palmer, 2012). Educated prisoners therefore reduce the risk of recidivism by increasing their employment opportunities after release (Davis, Bozick, Steele, 5 Saunders & Miles, 2013). Despite accumulated evidence on the relationship between low academic achievement and crime, there are few specific programmes for offenders that focus on their learning difficulties as opposed to programmes aimed at controlling anger and violence, sexual assault, incendiary behaviour, etc. (Taylor & Lindsay 2010). This is probably because there are few studies on the variables that influence the academic performance of prisoners, not so much because they are prisoners but because research on the academic performance of adults in basic education is very scarce compared to that of children and adolescents. For this reason, it is necessary to turn to research on academic performance in general to find empirical evidence on which to base intervention with this group. In addition, the amount of research on academic performance is small in relation to that carried out in the field of education and the studies that address it tend to do so in a secondary way in relation to other variables (Cabrera, 2016). Fortunately, when it has been studied, the interest has focused not only on identifying those variables that can lead to low performance, but also on promoting good performance (Tomás, Expósito & Sempere, 2014). Thus, it has been confirmed that academic performance is influenced by contextual variables but also by personal variables, such as demographics, attitudes and cognitive variables (Artunduaga, 2008; Tejedor, Sabucedo, Sobral, Serrano & Caride, 1991). However, in order to achieve academic success, it is not enough for students to have the necessary motivation (disposition, intention and motivation); they also need cognitive skills (abilities, knowledge and strategies) (González, Valle, Suárez & Fernández, 1999).
Although cognitive-motivational variables have traditionally been used to explain academic performance, more recently the relationship between executive functioning and academic performance has been emphasized (Huizinga, Baeyens & Burack, 2018); Mulder and Cragg, 2014), mainly in reading and writing (Blair & Razza, 2007), mathematics (Friso-van den Bos, van der Ven, Kroesbergen & van Luit, 2013) and science (Nayfeld, Fuccillo & Greenfield, 2013), both in children and adolescents. This relationship is evident at preschool age, when the executive 6 function predicts the development of mathematics and the learning of reading (Mulder, Verhagen, Van der Ven, Slot & Leseman, 2017). Later, in primary and secondary education, the development of working memory and cognitive inhibition and flexibility are factors that predict deficits in mathematics, reading and spelling (Daucourt, Schatschneider, Connor, Al Otaiba & Hart, 2018; Dekker, Ziermans, Spruijt & Swaab, 2017; Von Suchodoletz, Fäsche & Skuballa, 2017). The relationship between executive functions and academic performance seems logical since they are related to planning, initiating, and maintaining targeted behavior (Roberts, Robbins & Weiskrantz, 1998). Executive functions make it possible to face, both cognitively and emotionally, situations in which it is necessary to foresee the consequences of behaviour in the short, medium and long term (Barkley, 2001). These are independent but related cognitive skills that are involved in the generation, supervision, regulation, execution and readjustment of behaviours appropriate to a given situation (Gilbert and Burgess, 2008). Executive functions are associated with several brain regions, mainly the prefrontal cortex (Paschall & Fishbein, 2002) and several subcortical pathways (Monchi, Petrides, Strafella, Worsley & Doyon, 2006). The processes in which the executive functions are involved are classified in different ways according to the methodological approach used by those who propose them. Picton et al. (2007) consider that executive functions are responsible for energization, task setting, and monitoring, while Miyake et al. (2000) allude to updating, inhibition, and change, and Lezak (2004) to volition, planning, directed action, and execution. Verdejo-Garcia & Bechara (2010), on the
other hand, maintain that the main executive components are updating, inhibition, change, planning, multitasking and decision making. Executive functions that have been specifically related to school performance are working memory, interference control, cognitive flexibility and planning (Best, Miller & Naglieri, 2011; Jacob & Parkinson, 2015; Rapoport, Rubinsten & Katzir, 2016; Yeniad, Malda, Mesman, van Ijzendoorn & Pieper, 2013). Most studies have, however, been conducted with children and adolescents, so data on adults 7 are scarce. This lack is especially relevant if we bear in mind that the theoretical model proposed by Cragg & Gilmore (2014) establishes that some of the relationships between executive functions and the components of learning, specifically mathematical knowledge, are mediated by age. For example, while the relationship between procedural knowledge and working memory is stable throughout the life cycle, its relationship with the control of interference decreases with age. In this sense, studies with adults show that individual mathematical ability seems to affect the relationship of executive functions with the ability to perform arithmetic operations (Imbo & Vandierendonck, 2010). The following summarizes the available evidence regarding the relationship between academic performance and working memory, interference control, cognitive flexibility, and planning. As far as working memory is concerned, there is convergence in the results on its influence on global measures of reading (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014) and reading of words (Christopher, et al., 2012; Locascio, Mahone, Eason & Cutting, 2010; Messer, Henry & Nass, 2016), but there is no convergence in relation to reading comprehension (Georgiou & Das, 2016). The influence of working memory on performance in mathematics is supported by almost all studies on the subject. As for specific contents of academic performance, several investigations have found that working memory is related to knowledge of numerical facts and procedural knowledge (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Cragg, Keeble, Richardson, Roome & Gilmore, 2017; Friso-van den Bos, et al, 2013; Jacob & Parkinson, 2015; Raghubar, Barnes & Hecht, 2010; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006), but not with conceptual knowledge (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014). There is also evidence to
suggest that working memory influences performance in English and Science (St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). The available evidence on the relationship between interference control and word reading performance is inconclusive (Locascio et al., 2010; Messer et al., 2016), as is also the case for the relationship between interference control and reading comprehension (De Beni & Palladino, 2000). Nor are the results indisputable when the variable to be studied is general performance in 8 mathematics (Jacob & Parkinson, 2015; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). Where there seems to be a clearer relationship is with respect to the knowledge of numerical facts (calculation) (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Cragg, Keeble, Richardson, Roome & Gilmore, 2017). In the case of procedural knowledge (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Cragg, et al., 2017) and conceptual knowledge there is an interaction with age, so that in adults it only contributes to conceptual knowledge (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014). Finally, StClair-Thompson & Gathercole (2006) found that, in addition to the working memory referred to in the previous paragraph, interference control also contributes to performance in English and Sciences. Planning is linked to reading words and reading comprehension (Locascio et al., 2010; Messer et al., 2016). In Georgiou & Das’ (2016) study with university students, planning was shown to be a significant predictor of reading comprehension. Of the executive functions evaluated, it was the only one that discriminated between students with low and high reading comprehension. Finally, cognitive flexibility influences global reading measures (Yeniad et al., 2013), but not word reading measures (Messer et al., 2016). Data on the contribution of cognitive flexibility to overall performance in mathematics and procedural knowledge are divergent (Yeniad et al., 2013). Likewise, it does not seem to relate to conceptual knowledge nor to knowledge of numerical facts (calculation) (Cragg, et al., 2017). In summary, the studies reviewed show evidence that cognitive-motivational variables and executive functions are related to academic performance, but the predictive capacity for each group of variables and whether this relationship occurs in adults is unclear. There is also no evidence on how the relationship of these
variables with performance in adults is affected by the fact that they are serving a sentence of deprivation of liberty for having committed a crime. This is because the study of executive functions in institutionalized criminal populations has been oriented towards proving their relationship with criminal behavior, not with learning. The following section summarizes such research because, if executive functioning is related to academic performance and the executive functioning of offenders is inferior to that of non-criminals, the executive functioning of offenders can be an 9 important factor in understanding their academic performance and that is the basis of our study.
b) Executive Function and Criminal Conduct
Because executive functions are involved in planning, initiating, and regulating targeted behavior, their deficits are said to contribute to a decrease in self- regulation, social skills, and decision-making that are at the core of behavior control (Paschall & Fishbein, 2002). Neuroimaging studies suggest that there is an association between frontal lobe dysfunction and aggressive behavior (Brower & Price, 2001). Since the prefrontal cortex is crucial to the executive functions of inhibition, attention, memory, system change, and work planning, a prefrontal deficit may increase the risk of impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and even violent behavior (Meijers, Harte, Meynen, & Cuijpers, 2017; Seguin, 2008). Some research has shown that executive functions influence the initiation, maintenance and abandonment of antisocial behaviour (Seguin, 2008). In one of them, Hare (1999) evaluated 41 people who had committed murder and 41 people with no criminal history with Positron Emission Topography (PET) while performing tasks that activated the prefrontal cortex. It was found that in the prefrontal region of those who had committed murder, specifically in the frontal orbital cortex, activity rates were very low. Unusual functioning was also detected in subcortical regions, specifically in the amygdala and hippocampus. The killers tended to show a lower activity rate in the left region of these structures and a higher activity rate in the right. In another study in which 8 people who had been diagnosed as psychopaths were assessed with Functional Magnetic Resonance during the execution of an
affective memory task, abnormalities were found in the function of the limbic system and frontal cortex structures, so that alterations were observed in the anterior cingulum, amygdala, ventral striatum and hippocampal formation. It was concluded that psychopaths use cognitive strategies unrelated to the limbic system to process affective material (Kiehl, et al., 2001). Meta-analyses by Morgan & Lilienfeld (2000) and Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan &
Shum (2011) found a medium to large effect on the relationship between executive 10 function deficits and antisocial behaviour. The first analysed 39 studies involving a total of 4,589 participants from various groups who had manifested different types of antisocial behaviour: psychopathic personality, antisocial personality disorder, behavioural disorder, adult delinquents, juvenile delinquents, as well as psychiatric and non-psychiatric comparison groups. In the second meta-analysis 87 studies were added to the previous 39, expanding the sample to a total of 14,786 participants belonging to various groups with antisocial behaviour: young institutionalized delinquents, delinquents, individuals expressing physical and/or violent aggression, psychopathic personalities, individuals with conduct disorder and/or oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, ADHD, psychiatric/institutionalized comparison groups and normal comparison groups. The executive functions were measured by different tests and it was assumed that their relationship with criminal behaviour could be due both to a specific executive dysfunction and to a more generalised neurological deficit. Intelligence did not correlate significantly with the size of the estimated effect within or between groups. The results found indicate that: 1) There is a statistically significant association between antisocial behavior and deficit in executive functions. 2) Effect sizes are greater for antisocial behavior and delinquency than for antisocial personality disorders, behavioral disorders and psychopathy, but 3) Executive deficits are not specific to anti-social behavior. The definitions and measurement instruments used had a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship, suggesting that there may be executive functions, or their measures, more associated with antisocial behaviour
than others. Measures such as working memory, spatial memory and attention are the ones that obtain the greatest effect sizes and, in terms of instruments, the Trail Making Test Part B, the Porteus Mazes, the Stroop and verbal fluency tests such as the COWAT. In a recent meta-analysis, Gil, García, Carmona & Ortega (2018) analyzed 33 publications including 37 independent studies. The total sample consisted of 5752 adolescents, 2557 of whom belonged to the antisocial behaviour group penalized 11 and 3195 to the comparison group. Most of the effects found showed a medium magnitude, and as they were positive, it was concluded that there was a deficit in executive functions in the group of penalized antisocial behavior. As in the meta- analyses of Morgan & Lilienfeld (2000) and Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan & Shum (2011), the Porteus Maze is the test that provides the greatest magnitude of effect, specifically the Q score, which constitutes an indicator of emotional tension, impulsivity and inability to control emotions and follow rules, patterns traditionally associated with antisocial behaviour. The Stroop and Trail Making Tests, which are related to the processes of inhibition and cognitive flexibility, also allowed medium magnitude effects to be obtained. Finally, although high effects were observed for the VFT and COWAT agility and fluidity tests, these results are not conclusive due to the small number of studies in which they were used. The relationship between anti-social behaviour and executive functions is enhanced by serving a prison sentence (Meijers, Harte, Meynen, Cuijpers & Scherder, 2018). This is because confinement is characterised by a sedentary lifestyle (Cashin, Potter & Butler, 2008; Elger, 2009; Ireland & Culpin, 2006) and a decrease in personal autonomy, as the prisoner is subject to strict prison rules in which decisions about any activity of daily life (sleeping, eating, attending activities, seeing family members) depend on the institution (Woodall et al., 2013). There is also social isolation by losing contact with their social networks and the community. Sedentary lifestyles, social isolation and lack of cognitive challenges have been found to negatively affect executive functions and the prefrontal functioning of the brain (Meijers, Harte, Jonker & Meynen, 2015; Scherder, Bogen, Eggermont, Hamers & Swaab, 2010).
c) Meta-analysis of the relationship between adult criminal behaviour and executive functions.
From the meta-analyses of Morgan & Lilienfeld (2000) and Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan & Shum (2011), which combined both juvenile and adult samples, with great variability in the differential weight of these samples, the team at the University of Almeria initiated a line of research in which it opted for differentiating in meta- analyses studies that are related to frontal lobe development and therefore to 12 executive functioning. With this objective, the meta-analysis was carried out with samples of minors/youths in the Juvenile Justice services (Gil, García, Carmona & Ortega, 2018) already commented on, and another within the framework of this project where only adult samples were included. Thus, as a review of knowledge on the subject and as an introduction to financed products 2 and 3, the following was studied the relationship between Executive Functions (EF) and Criminal Behaviour (CB) in the specific group of incarcerated adults, through the technique of meta-analysis.
Method Search strategy and inclusion of articles First, those studies that met the inclusion criteria of our research, discussed below, were selected from the meta-analysis of Ogilvie et al. (2011). Secondly, a new search was conducted for articles published since 2010. The search was conducted between January and August 2017 in the following databases: ProQuest, PsycArticles, PsycInfo and MedLine. The keywords used were concepts related to FAITH and CA: antisocial, psychopathy, delinquency, criminal, violence; prison, incarcerated; executive function, executive control, cognitive control, frontal function, frontal lobe, working memory, attention, impulsivity, inhibition, neuropsychological, neurocognitive. The studies analyzed ranged from 1968 to 2017. The final selection of the studies was made by two researchers, resolving conflicts by consensus.
On the other hand, the inclusion criteria of the studies selected in this work were the following: a) The independent variable CB included at least two groups: a group of individuals who were serving a prison sentence for the commission of one or more offences and a criminal comparison group. In parallel, studies were selected in which the comparison group was composed of individuals who did
have some degree of Criminal Antisocial Behaviour (CAB) (e.g. violent vs. non- 13 violent prisoners, prisoners with a high level of psychopathy vs. low level of psychopathy, etc.). The latter were hereinafter referred to as "not pure" comparison groups. b) The sample of the study in which the relationship between CB and FE was analysed focuses on the adult stage. c) EFs were measured using standardized instruments specifically designed to evaluate these cognitive processes. d) The studies provided sufficient data to be able to calculate the size of the effect (e.g. means and typical deviations, estimates of the statistics t, F, p, d or r). e) The language in which the studies were published was in English or Spanish.
Information coding Once the articles that were included in the meta-analysis had been selected, a table was first drawn up with the main data for each study: the type of antisocial behaviour to which it referred and the strategies used to measure it, the groups of participants with the mean age and the mean Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of each, the number of women present in the sample, the tests used to measure EFs, and the effect size for each of them, calculated by means of the Hedges correction. This information was then collected in an EXCEL template to which data on possible moderating variables were added: the year of publication, the type of comparison group, whether or not the study had been published, the total mean age, the mean age of the study group, the total mean IQ, the mean IQ of the study
group, whether the sample had an established diagnosis (psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD...), the tests used to measure EF, the type of EF that each test measured (FE cold, hot or mixed), and the quality of each study, measured on a Likert-type scale from 0 to 4. In the type of comparison group, a distinction was made between the pure group, understood as the group made up of people who were not imprisoned and therefore did not have any type of CD, and the non-pure group, made up of people who were imprisoned and who 14 differed from the study group in other aspects, such as the degree of violence or psychopathy). Finally, all the data were transferred to the Comprehensive Meta- Analysis version 3 (CMA) programme.
Data analysis Due to factors such as the level of generalization contemplated, the wide sample heterogeneity found and the large number of studies used, a random effects model was followed to estimate the size of the weighted effect. Similarly, the weighted effect size was also estimated according to the fixed effects model in order to make a comparison with previous meta-analyses. A heterogeneity analysis was also carried out using Q and I2 statistics. The analysis of the moderating variables was carried out by comparing groups or meta- regression, depending on whether the variables were categorical or quantitative, respectively. The analyses were implemented in the CMA version 3.0 program, following the mixed effects model and with unrestricted maximum likelihood estimation. The sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis was performed through the technique of successively eliminating a study, as well as through the Trim and Fill strategy (Duval & Tweedie, 2000). For the study of publication bias, Rosenthal's safety number was estimated, as well as Orwin's proposal and Egger's test.
Results In this meta-analysis the selected articles were 50, from which 60 independent studies were obtained. This is because, as discussed above, some articles used
two different samples (Hart, Forth & Hare, 1990; Porteus, 1945) or the results were reported depending on whether the participants were primary psychopaths or secondary psychopaths (Devonshire, Howard & Sellars, 1988), psychopaths with high or low anxiety (Dvorak-Bertsch et al., 2007; Smith, Arnett & Newman, 1992; Vitale et al., 2007), violent or nonviolent (Greenfield & Valliant, 2007; Hoaken, Allaby & Earle, 2007), aggressive-irritable or aggressive-predators (Levi,
Nussbaum & Rich, 2010), pedophiles or non-pedophiles (Suchy et al., 2009). The 15 other articles did not analyze more clinical comorbidities not related to antisocial behavior, so comorbidity was not studied later as a moderating variable. The average age for the total sample was 32.38 years old and 33.35 years old for the study group, i.e. adults in whom the relationship between CD and FE was analysed. With regard to IQ, an average score of 96.02 was obtained for the total sample and 94.29 for the group of adults imprisoned, both considered within average levels. IQ was assessed using the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS), the National Adult Reading Test (NART), the Non-Verbal Intelligence Test (TONI), the Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS), the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery - II (MAB-II), the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, and the Ammons & Ammons Quick Test (QT) (1962). A study of effect of size outliers was conducted for the 60 independent studies, to which an exploratory analysis of data through the box-plot graph was applied. Those studies considered with very distant values were eliminated. In this sense, as the results of this analysis showed that two of the selected studies (Dolan et al., 2002; Munro et al., 2007) presented extreme data, they were eliminated from the subsequent analyses. When two articles were removed from the articles in the meta-analysis, 58 independent studies were finally included, 30 with standardized comparison group and 28 with comparison group of another group of prisoners. A total of 3210 participants were assessed, of whom 3093 were male and 117 were female.
Estimation of the mean effect
Figures 1 and 2 show the mean effect, individual effects, variance, confidence intervals and forest plot from a random effects model because the number of studies was high and the effects were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 89,133). As can be seen, all but four studies (Dvorak-Bertsch et al., 2004; Smith, Arnett, & Newman, 1992; Sutker, Moan, & Allain, 1983; Vitale et al., 2007) showed positive effects, which indicated the existence of a deficit in executive functions in the group
of prisoners with respect to the comparison group. Thus, the mean effect estimated 16 under the random-effects model for the pure comparison group case with 30 studies could be considered mean (ES = 0.679; p<.0001; 95% CI [0.529-0.829]), indicating that there is a relationship between serving a prison sentence and executive dysfunction. For the non-pure group with 28 studies, the mean effect estimated under the random effects model was less than the previous one (ES=0.353; p<.0001; 95% CI [0.292-0.513]).
Figure 1. Mean effect, individual effects, variance, confidence intervals and forest plot for the different studies of the pure comparison group, according to the random effects model.
Study name Outcome Statistics for each study Hedges's g and 95% CI Hedges's Standard Lower Upper g error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value Blair et al. (2006) PONDERADO 2,312 0,252 0,064 1,818 2,807 9,166 0,000 No puro Broomhall (2005) PONDERADO 0,798 0,150 0,022 0,504 1,092 5,320 0,000 No puro Dvorak-Bertsch et al. (2007) * PONDERADO -0,395 0,205 0,042 -0,796 0,006 -1,931 0,053 No puro Dvorak-Bertsch et al. (2007) PONDERADO 0,090 0,208 0,043 -0,317 0,497 0,434 0,664 No puro Gillstrom (1994) PONDERADO 0,360 0,310 0,096 -0,247 0,967 1,162 0,245 No puro Hare (1984) PONDERADO 0,264 0,184 0,034 -0,097 0,624 1,433 0,152 No puro Hart, Forth, and Hare (1990) * PONDERADO 0,441 0,170 0,029 0,108 0,775 2,595 0,009 No puro Hart, Forth, and Hare (1990) PONDERADO 0,055 0,203 0,041 -0,343 0,453 0,271 0,787 No puro Hiatt, Schmitt, and Newman (2004) PONDERADO 0,373 0,147 0,022 0,084 0,662 2,533 0,011 No puro Howard, Payamal, and Neo (1997) PONDERADO 0,214 0,197 0,039 -0,172 0,600 1,089 0,276 No puro Kosson and Newman (1986) PONDERADO 0,515 0,169 0,029 0,183 0,847 3,040 0,002 No puro Lapierre, Braun, and Hodgins (1995) PONDERADO 0,844 0,123 0,015 0,603 1,086 6,849 0,000 No puro 17 Levi, Nussbaum, and Rich (2010) * PONDERADO 0,528 0,138 0,019 0,257 0,800 3,821 0,000 No puro Levi, Nussbaum, and Rich (2010) PONDERADO 0,860 0,131 0,017 0,603 1,117 6,565 0,000 No puro Mitchell et al. (2002) PONDERADO 0,844 0,228 0,052 0,397 1,290 3,705 0,000 No puro Moltó et al. (2007) PONDERADO 1,213 0,346 0,119 0,536 1,891 3,509 0,000 No puro O'Connor Pennuto (2007) PONDERADO 0,510 0,362 0,131 -0,200 1,220 1,409 0,159 No puro Pham et al. (2003) PONDERADO 0,448 0,095 0,009 0,263 0,633 4,740 0,000 No puro Schalling and Rosen (1968) PONDERADO 0,640 0,250 0,063 0,150 1,130 2,558 0,011 No puro Siegel (1998) PONDERADO 0,635 0,194 0,038 0,254 1,015 3,269 0,001 No puro Smith, Arnett, and Newman (1992) * PONDERADO 0,252 0,151 0,023 -0,044 0,548 1,667 0,095 No puro Smith, Arnett, and Newman (1992) PONDERADO -0,395 0,159 0,025 -0,707 -0,082 -2,477 0,013 No puro Sutker, Moan, and Allain (1983) PONDERADO -0,998 0,163 0,027 -1,317 -0,678 -6,116 0,000 No puro Sutker, Moan, and Swanson (1972) PONDERADO 0,040 0,281 0,079 -0,510 0,590 0,143 0,887 No puro Vitale et al. (2007) * PONDERADO -0,293 0,189 0,036 -0,663 0,077 -1,553 0,120 No puro Vitale et al. (2007) PONDERADO 0,369 0,197 0,039 -0,018 0,755 1,871 0,061 No puro Wodushek (2003) PONDERADO 0,219 0,171 0,029 -0,116 0,555 1,283 0,200 No puro Zeier et al. (2012) PONDERADO 0,189 0,083 0,007 0,026 0,352 2,273 0,023 No puro 0,353 0,031 0,001 0,292 0,413 11,405 0,000 -2,50 -1,25 0,00 1,25 2,50
Favours A Favours B Figure 2. Mean effect, individual effects, variance, confidence intervals and forest plot for the different studies with a non-pure comparison group, according to the random effects model.
Analysis of moderating variables Since the homogeneity test was statistically significant and the I2 index obtained 2 was high both in the pure group (Q(29) =232.12, p<.001; I = 87.5%) and in the non- 2 pure comparison group (Q(27) =244.58, p<.001; I = 88.96%), the influence of possible moderating variables was analyzed. More specifically, the type of FE measured, whether or not the study was published, the type of sample depending on the diagnosis presented and the quality of the study were studied as categorical variables in both groups. The quantitative variables studied through meta- regression were the mean total age, the mean age of the group of prisoners, the mean total IQ, the mean IQ of the group of prisoners and the year of publication of the study.
Tables 1 and 2 show the results of the categorical and quantitative variables, respectively. Only the variable of the type of executive function (Q(1) = 13.56; p = .009) and year of publication (b = -0.001; p < .007; R2 =.009) influenced in a statistically significant way, being the average estimate of Attention that of (d = 0.397), that of Cognitive Flexibility (d = 0.769), that of Work Memory (d = 0.524), for Planning (d = 0.403) and in Disejective Syndrome (d = 0.859).
18 Table 1: Results of the analysis of moderating variables for categorical variables in pure comparison groups
Variables Qb df P
EF Area 13.56 4 0,009
Published 1.729 1 0,189
Sample Type 5.423 3 0,143 Study quality 1.31 3 0,727
Table 2: Results of meta-regressions for quantitative variables in pure comparison groups Lower Limit Upper limit Variables b t p R2 95%CI 95%CI Total average 0.019 -0.004 0.042 1.66 .104 0.04 age
Average age GE 0.013 -0.012 0.038 1.08 .289 0
Total average IC -0.024 -0.051 0.004 -1.76 .088 0.09
Mean CI GE -0.021 -0.044 0.003 -1.82 .078 0.1
Year of -0.0123 -0.0209 -0.0036 -2.9 .007 0.29 publication
Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the categorical and quantitative variables in the non-pure comparison groups, respectively. Only the variables of the type of executive function (Q(1) = 13.56; p= .009) and mean general age (b= -0.001; p<.007; R2=.009) were statistically significant, being the average estimate of Attention that of (d = 0.489), that of Cognitive Flexibility (d = 0.185), that of Work Memory (d = 0.08), for Planning (d = 0.55) and in Disexecutive Syndrome
(d=0.720). 19
Table 3: Results of the analysis of moderating variables for categorical variables in non-pure comparison groups
Variables Qb df p
Test Group 11.81 4 0.019
Publication 1.72 1 0.189 Sample Type 0.91 3 0.143 Study Quality 1.31 3 0.727
Table 4: Results of the analysis of moderating variables for categorical variables in non-pure comparison groups Lower Limit Upper limit Variables k b t p R2 95%CI 95%CI Age-Total (Mean) 24 0.104 0.0412 0.166 3.44 .002 .39
Age- SG (Mean) 18 0.07 0.0002 0.14 2.13 .05 .22
IQ-Total (Mean) 18 -0.024 -0.051 0.004 -1.76 .088 .09
IQ- SG (Mean) 18 -0.021 -0.044 0.003 -1.82 .078 .1
Year of 28 0.0123 -0.0209 -0.0036 -2.9 .20 .03 publication
Sensitivity analysis and publication bias First, with regard to sensitivity analysis, through the progressive elimination of each study, the average estimate of the size of the effect was not altered, being the average effect in the same direction, and equal magnitude and statistical significance. Therefore, it can be concluded that the results were robust with the inclusion of each of the studies that finally composed the meta-analysis.
Additionally, the Trim and Fill strategy (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) was used to 20 complete the sensitivity and bias analysis. In this strategy, the Funnel Plot method was combined with an estimation and correction of the size of the mean effect looking for the symmetry of the Funnel. With the use of the adjustment, the imputed point estimate was exactly the same as in the previous case, since no adjustment had been necessary. Thus, the estimates obtained through this strategy fully coincided with the average effect found in our analysis. In terms of publication bias, and taking into account the safety number estimation strategy, this meta-analysis incorporated data from 58 studies, (Z = 24,226; p<.0001). Thus, the safety number of Rosenthal N (fs) resulted in 8804, while that of Orwin resulted in 245, the latter being the number of studies not found to establish our results as null. On the other hand, with Egger's test the result obtained was not statistically significant. All this shows that there was no publication bias.
Conclusion The existence of deficits in executive functions in people in prison in comparison with normalized equals, as well as between different groups of the prison inmates themselves was confirmed. The latter resembled each other more with respect to deficits than with normalized peers. The deficits found could be grouped into 4 blocks: working memory, planning, cognitive flexibility and attention. The average effect found as an intermediate between criminal behavior and deficits in executive functions was (r = .33), being lower when compared to groups of prisoners (r = .19), which suggested a generalization of deficits in the entire prison population. Therefore, as the deficit in
executive functions would be widespread among adults in prison, it should be the object of special attention in order to learn new skills in adult education centres within prisons. Thus, deficits in executive functions become SESN learners.
21
2- EMPIRICAL STUDIES
This section includes research into the products financed. Specifically, the neuropsychological evaluation study of the SESN related functions of adult prisoners in reference prisons and their comparison with standardized peers (Product 2) and the neuropsychological evaluation study of the executive functions of students in prison compared to peers who had gone through juvenile internment 22 and standardized peers (Product 3).
a) General methodology of intellectual products 2 and 3
The general methodology common to the two studies carried out and defined in Intellectual Products 2 and 3 is presented below.
Participants The final sample consisted of 415 participants (301 prisoners and 114 normalized) from 6 European prisons (3 Italian, 2 Spanish and 1 Portuguese). Sixty-two per cent of the sample came from the two Spanish prisons, while the remaining percentage was shared equally between the Portuguese prison (19 per cent) and the three Italian prisons (19%). Although the participants were men in 85% of the cases, data were available for a total of 63 women. The average age was 37.7 years (SD = 12.7) and the percentage of prisoners with a juvenile justice background was 19%.
Instruments Variables analyzed included working memory, spatial memory, attention, interference control, planning, cognitive flexibility, general intelligence, and verbal fluency. Social desirability, impulsivity, psychopathy, psychopathology, prefrontal symptoms, sensitivity to reinforcement and punishment, and performance in reading comprehension and calculation tasks were also measured. To measure these variables, neuropsychological assessment instruments were used, administered in individual sessions, and paper and pencil tests to which
participants responded in individual or group sessions depending on their reading- writing level. The neuropsychological evaluation tests were: the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT-FAS), Color and Word Test (STROOP), Tower of London (TOL), Trail Making Test (TMT), Porteus Labyrinths Test, WAIS-IV (Digits, Vocabulary and Matrices), and the Continuous Performance Test (CPT). The paper and pencil tests were: the Prefrontal Symptom Inventory (ISP), Symptom
Assessment-45 Questionnaire (SA-45), Levenson´s Self-Report Psychopathy 23 Scale (LSRP), Barrat impulsivity scale (BIS-11), Social Desirability Scale, Punishment Sensitivity and Reward Sensitivity (SCSR) Calculus Test and Reading Comprehension Test. These tests are described below.
A) Neuropsychological evaluation tests.
▬ Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT-FAS) (Benton & Hamsher, 1989). It is a measure of verbal fluency, both phonetic and semantic, and therefore of the functioning of the frontal lobe. The task is for the participant to spontaneously list words that begin with a letter (F, A, and S) or belong to the same category (animals). The maximum time in each case is one minute. Both correct words and repetitions (perseverations) and wrong words (intrusions) are measured. The full evaluation takes approximately 5-10 minutes.
▬ Color and Word Test (STROOP) (Golden, 1994). It is one of the most widely used tests for the detection of neuropsychological problems, brain damage and evaluation of interference. It includes three tasks: (1) reading words (names of different colors) printed in black, (2) color naming (XXXX printed in different colors is shown and participants have to say what the color of the print is), and (3) naming the colors of the print without reading the word (the color naming the word does not match the printed color). The comparison of the scores obtained in the three tasks makes it possible to evaluate the effects of the
interference on the participant and their attentional control capacity, which is why this research has been used as a measure of attentional inhibition. Despite the simplicity of the stimuli used in this task and their short application time, the results allow the discrimination between participants who consume drugs and/or who have dementia, psychopathology, stress or brain damage. It is also useful for locating this damage in specific areas of the brain (right/left hemisphere, anterior/posterior part). 24
▬ Tower of London (TOL) (Shallice, 1982). The Tower of London is a neuropsychological test developed to identify the deterioration of planning processes associated with frontal lobe dysfunction. This test requires planning and means-ends analysis to solve problems that are becoming increasingly difficult. For each problem, the participant is presented with an image of the figure to be replicated on a wooden table with 3 sticks and 3 coloured rings. The way to carry out this replica is marked by strict rules, hence the difficulty of the game. It measures the number of moves and total time. A computerized version has been used in this research: (http://pebl.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PEBL_Test_Battery).
▬ Trail Making Test (TMT) (Reitan, 1958). The Trail Making Test is used to identify people with brain damage although it was originally intended to measure divided attention. It is a paper and pencil test consisting of two parts (A and B) and serves to measure sustained attention and divided attention, mental flexibility and motor inhibition. In this study it is used for the evaluation of motor inhibition. In the first part the participant must join 25 points according to the numbering that accompanies them (1 to 25), while in the second part the points must be joined alternating the order of the numbers (1 to 13) with the letters (A to L). Both tasks must be carried out as quickly as possible, since for their correction the time taken by the participant to join the points will be taken into account, as well as the number of perseverative and non-perseverative errors and omission of numbers.
▬ Porteus Labyrinths (Porteus, 2006).
The Porteus Labyrinths test evaluates the intellectual aptitude to elaborate a work plan. It was used as a measure of planning and spatial memory, although its execution is also related to social adaptation and criminal behavior. It is applied individually, and its correction provides a score based on the number of errors and lack of rule following when solving a series of labyrinths that the subject must trace 25 with a pencil, without separating the tip of the pencil from the paper containing the labyrinth. ▬ WAIS IV (Digits) (Wechsler, 2012).
This assesses attention and resistance to distraction, auditory memory, immediate memory and working memory. It also allows the location of subcortical dysfunctions. It includes three parts: Direct Digits consists of repeating a series of digits, which are presented orally, in the same order as they are presented; Inverse Digits, which consists of repeating a series of digits in reverse order to the one presented; and Digits in Increasing Order consists of repeating from least to most the numbers read by the examiner. ▬ WAIS-IV (vocabulary and matrices) (Wechsler, 2012). The Matrices test consists of choosing the drawing that completes a series that is incomplete. It measures abstract reasoning and the ability to process visual information. It includes 26 multiple choice items. It is of individual application and the approximate application time is 8 minutes. The Vocabulary test also includes 26 items and requires the naming of an object to be displayed visually (denomination) and the definition of words of increasing difficulty that are presented orally and in writing. It reflects the educational level, the learning capacity, the formation of verbal concepts and the verbal and semantic richness of the environment in which the person being evaluated operates.
▬ Continuos Performace Test (CPT) (Rosvold, Mirsky, Sarason, Bransome & Beck, 1956).
This test is a simple go-no go type reaction time task, in which participants must answer by pressing a key (spacer), as quickly as possible, when a certain stimulus (a letter) appears on the screen (the go stimulus) and refrain from responding when a different stimulus appears (the no-go stimulus). The purpose of this task is to measure sustained attention. A computerized version was applied which was completed in approximately 14 minutes. A computerized version was used
(http://pebl.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PEBL_Continuous_Performance_Test 26 ). The proportion of hits, errors, omissions and reaction time for hits was scored.
B) Paper and pencil tests.
▬ Inventory of Prefrontal Symptoms (IPS) (Ruiz•Sánchez de León et al., 2012). This test is a self-reported questionnaire of 46 items, which measures symptoms linked to the prefrontal cortex that the participant perceives in their functioning in daily life and that have been related to neuropsychological alterations. These items are grouped into three factors called Problems in Execution, Problems in Emotional Control and Problems in Social Behavior. The first factor is further broken down into three sub-factors: Motivational Problems, Attentional Problems and Problems of Executive Control. Each item is answered on a Likert scale (from 0, never or almost never to 4, always or almost always).
▬ Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire (SA-45) (Davison, et al., 1997) This test is a 45-item psychopathological symptom self-report derived from SCL- 90 (Derogatis, Lipman & Covi, 1973). It consists of nine scales of five items each that evaluate the same dimensions as the SCL-90 (somatization, obsession- compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism). Each item is answered with a Likert scale (0-4).
▬ Levenson´s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRPS) (Levenson, Kiehl & Fitzpatrick, 1995). LSRPS is a 26-item self-report that measures psychopathic behavior in non- institutionalized populations and has also been used with inmate populations (Walters, Brinkley, Magaletta & Diamond, 2008). It consists of a total psychopathy scale and a primary psychopathy subscale - which is related to psychopathy as a personality dimension, in line with PCL-R factor I (Hare, 2003), and another, 27 secondary psychopathy - which is related to psychopathy as antisocial attitudes and impulsivity, in line with PCL-R factor II (Hare, 2003). The application time is approximately 5 minutes. This test can be applied collectively.
▬ Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The measure of social desirability is understood in terms of people's need to respond in a culturally acceptable way. It is made up of 33 items that are answered by indicating True or False. The scale is scored by adding the items that are answered as true, after inverting the 15 items that are formulated in the opposite direction. ▬ Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11) (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995). The BIS-11 Scale is a 30-item questionnaire that gives a measure of general impulsivity and three subscales: cognitive impulsivity, motor impulsivity and unplanned impulsivity. Items are scored on a 4 point Likert scale. The application time is approximately 5 minutes and can be applied collectively.
▬ Questionnaire on Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward (SCSR) (Torrubia, Ávila, Moltó & Caseras, 2001). It is a questionnaire that consists of 48 items that are answered indicating True or False. It includes two subscales, each of 24 items. The punishment sensitivity subscale measures behavioral inhibition related to active or passive avoidance behaviors in situations where negative consequences or concern for punishment or failure may occur. The reward sensitivity scale is related to the behavioral
activation system aimed at obtaining reinforcements such as money, power, sex, or sensation-seeking.
▬ Arithmetic Calculus Test (PCA) (Artiles & Jiménez, 2011). This test includes 37 mathematical operations of which 20 are additions or subtractions of one or more digits and 17 remaining multiplications and divisions of one or two digits, with and without decimals, and simple operations with 28 fractions. It was used to measure the competence level of the participants in relation to the first (addition and subtraction), second and third cycle (multiplication, division, decimals and fractions) of Primary Education.
▬ PISA2009 Reading Comprehension Test (Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, 2010). This test measures basic reading skills and consists of a descriptive text (146 words) dealing with a simple topic (brushing one's teeth) with a support drawing and four questions about it, three of them test type. Through the test, the participant obtains information that has to be evaluated, integrated and interpreted. Its purpose is to measure their ability to understand and reflect on written texts. The reading time of the text is recorded, as well as the successes in the answers. The level of this test is Primary Education and it is available in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese.
▬ Records data From the records of the inmates the available information on: Sociodemographic data (age, sex, studies, profession, academic background, nationality, marital status); use of psychotropic drugs and/or medication; consumption of alcohol and drugs; type of crime and sentence; recidivism; juvenile justice history; protective services history; average mark for academic record and course; prison conduct; previous diagnosis of some type of psychopathology; standardized scores in any given personality or psychopathology test; and IQ scores in any given standardized test was obtained.
Procedure First, the evaluation protocol was developed and agreed upon, including the tests described above, as well as informed consent for participants. The informed consent explained the nature of the research, that participation was voluntary, that the treatment of the information collected would be confidential, and that the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed through the use of a code. Data collection was carried out with the support of the prison management and 29 educational team, in the context of the classroom. Given the large number of instruments used, the need to apply those of a neuropsychological nature individually, and not to interfere with the functioning of the centres and services, both collective sessions and individual sessions were carried out. The collective sessions were carried out in the classroom, with the support of the teachers, in groups of a maximum of 15 participants. The individual sessions took place outside academic hours in a quiet place in the centre. The tests were administered by trained collaborators from the participating universities. The collection of data from the comparison group of learners in adult education centres was carried out following the above dynamics. Data were also collected from people with a similar educational level who did not attend such centres. The latter were accessed through the snowball technique by students and collaborators from the participating universities so that the sessions were always individual. In all cases each participant was assigned a code to safeguard their anonymity and the confidentiality of their personal data. This code was established in the first group session and was used when collecting the rest of the measures. Table 5 groups the tests in individual and group sessions, specifying the duration of their administration and the measured variables.
Table 5: Protocol of administered instruments, grouped in individual and group sessions
Individual Sessions Group Sessions
Instrument Variable Mins. Instrument Variable Mins. COWAT- Verbal Prefrontal 5´ ISP 15’ FAS Fluency Syndrome Clinical STROOP Interference 5´ SA45- BSI 5’ Symptoms 30
TOL Planning 15´ LSRPS Psychopathy 5’ Attention and Social Social TMT-A y B 5´ 10’ cognitive desirability test desirability flexibility Planning PORTEUS and spatial 15´ BIS-11 Impulsivity 5’ memory Sensitivity to WAIS General reinforcement (Vocabulary 15´ SPSQR 10’ intelligence and & Matrices) punishment Test of WAIS Working Arithmetic 5´ arithmetic 15’ (Digits) memory calculation calculation Reading Sustained Reading CPT 15´ comprehension 10’ attention comprehension test
Time: 1h. max. Time: 1h. 30´ max.
Notes.- COWAT-FAS: Controlled Oral Word Association Test; STROOP: Color and Word Test, TOL: Tower of London: TMT: Trail Making Test; CPT: Continuous Performance Test; ISP: Inventory of Prefrontal Symptoms; SA-45: Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire; LSRPS: Levenson´s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; BIS-11: Barrat impulsivity scale; SPSQR: Questionnaire on Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward.
Design and statistical analysis Prisoners were divided into two groups based on whether or not they had a Juvenile Justice background. Subsequently, comparisons were made between
three groups of participants: prisoners with no juvenile justice background, prisoners with a juvenile justice background and people without criminal activity, with demographic and educational characteristics similar to the other two groups. Mean-to-group comparison analyses (t-test) were conducted for the case of two groups in Intellectual Product 2 by comparing the groups of inmates in prison versus the comparison group. In the case of Intellectual Product 3, three groups were compared (ANOVA test); the comparison group and the division of the group 31 of inmates into those with a history of juvenile justice and those without it. Parametric assumptions were checked and, in cases of non-compliance, robust statistics were estimated and a posteriori comparison were adjusted. The size of the effect of the comparisons (r) was also estimated. In the case of analyses that included academic performance, regression models were estimated. The software used for the analysis was SPSS 22 (IBM, 2014).
b) Results of Intellectual Product 2
A first analysis was performed to estimate the premorbid level and contrast in demographic variables (see table 5). A descriptive difference in gender and age was observed, being higher in the group of prisoners than in the comparison group, with no statistically significant differences between prisoners with and without juvenile justice records. The difference found in age was not relevant to explain the results since all participants were adults.
Table 6: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in age, vocabulary and matrices. *p<.05 Variable Group N Mean SD ES (r) Prison 301 38.92 12.248 Age Comparison 114 31.70 15.992 0,26* Total 415 36.93 13.751 Prison 286 9.98 5.302 Matrices 0,22* Comparison 105 14.48 5.630
Total 391 11.19 5.742 Prison 287 19.59 10.810 Vocabulary Comparison 105 25.41 14.010 0,10* Total 392 21.15 12.015
In figure 3, statistically significant differences were observed in Vocabulary and Matrices, with a higher score on the part of the comparison group. 32
Figure 3. Mean scores and 95%CI for vocabulary and matrices in comparison and prison groups
In an analysis for cognitive domains it was observed that: a) The analysis of attentional domain may be seen in Table 7. Scores for the Stroop test (word, color and interference) and for the TMT in its A and B versions, as well as average reaction times and CPT errors are included.
Table 7: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the attentional area. Color and word tests (STROOP), Trail Making Test (TMT) and Continuous Performance Test (CPT).
Variable Group N Mean SD ES(r) Prison 278 79.97 28.99 STROOP Comparison 102 86.99 28.871 .12* Word Total 380 81.86 29.087 Prison 278 63.98 19.688 STROOP Comparison 102 66.77 15.681 .07 Color Total 380 64.73 18.718 33 Prison 278 20.695 42.545 STROOP Comparison 102 18.251 38.380 .03 Interference Total 380 20.039 41.4333 Prison 283 47.34 28.904 TMTP_A Comparison 102 47.82 28.362 .008 Total 385 47.47 28.725 Prison 275 97.42 63.515 TMTP_B Comparison 102 112.17 73.974 .11* Total 377 101.41 66.729 Prison 283 0.16 0.56 TMEPA Comparison 102 0.1 0.386 .06 Total 385 0.15 0.52 Prison 275 0.63 1.354 TMT_B Comparison 102 0.32 1.064 .12* Perseverative error Total 377 0.54 1.288 TMTB Prison 283 0.33 0.636 Non peserverative Comparison 102 0.25 0.989 .05 error Total 385 0.3 0.746 Prison 166 5.46 11.902 CPT Comparison 66 4.32 4.893 .05 Error of Commission Total 232 5.13 10.402 CPT Prison 166 4.43 7.734 .024
Error of omission Comparison 66 4.03 9.11 Total 232 4.31 8.13 CPT Prison 166 470.4 106.528 Mean Reaction Time Comparison 65 398.48 96.084 .33* (Success rate) Total 231 450.16 108.445 *p<.05 34 A worse performance was recorded by the group of prisoners for reaction time of the CPT (Table 4), execution time of the TMTB (Figure 4) and for the number of non-perseverative errors (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Mean scores and 95%CI for Figure 4. Mean scores and 95%CI for perseverative errors in the execution of time in the execution of TMT-B. TMT-B.
b) In the area of Planning (Table 8), prisoners performed the labyrinth task worse (Figure 6), in addition to needing more time and movement in the Tower of London planning task (Figure 7 and 8). The Porteus Q score correlated an average magnitude of r = .3 with the Prefrontal Symptom Inventory (ISP) execution scales.
Table 8: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the Planning área, Tower of London Test (TOL) and Porteus Labyrinth Q Score (LPPQ). Variable Group N Mean SD ES (r) Prison 226 31.05 30.49 LPPQ Comparison 83 22.65 24.14 .14*
Total 309 28.79 29.13 35 Prison 224 72.93 17.14 TOL_MOVES Comparison 82 65.75 10.53 .22* Total 306 71.01 15.95 Prison 224 334.82 200.81 TOL_TIME Comparison 82 216.27 119.70 .31* Total 306 303.05 189.88 *p<.05
Figure 6. Mean scores and 95%CI for the Porteus Labyrinth Q score.
Figure 7. Mean scores and 95%CI for the Figure 8. Mean scores and 95%CI for the time in the execution of the TOL. number of movements in TOL.
c) In the area of cognitive flexibility, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of intra-group differential performance, although a statistically significant decrease was observed (Table 9) in the group of prisoners in verbal fluency in both semantic and phonetic tasks (Figure 9).
Table 9: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the area 36 of cognitive flexibility. Test Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT- FAS-MRP). *p<.05 Variables Group N Mean SD ES (r) Prison 284 8.93 4.43 CO_F-M Comparison 102 10.46 4.52 .17* Total 386 9.34 4.50 Prison 284 8.69 4.89 CO_A-R Comparison 102 9.91 4.45 .12* Total 386 9.01 4.80 Prison 284 9.54 4.33 CO_S-P Comparison 102 11.26 4.90 .19* Total 386 9.99 4.55 Prison 287 9 4.24 FAS/MRP Comparison 102 10.55 4.29 .18* Mean Total 389 9.4 4.30 Prison 285 15.74 4.66 CO_AN Comparison 102 18.69 4.77 .30* Total 387 16.52 4.86 Prison 284 -6.66 4.10 FAS_ANIM Comparison 102 -8.13 3.64 .18* Total 386 -7.05 4.03
37
Figure 9. Mean scores and 95%CI for the FAS and Animal task.
d) Statistically significant differences were observed in relation to the working memory, being smaller on the part of those imprisoned, although it was within the levels of normality (Figure 10). There were no statistically significant differences in memory span.
Table 10: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the memory area. WAIS IV test in digit category.
Variables Group N Mean SD ES (r) Prison 288 18.77 6.67 Digit Score Comparison 105 21.47 6.16 .20* Total 393 19.49 6.64 WASPANDD Prison 227 5.44 1.29 Comparison 88 5.64 1.40 .07 Direct Digit Span Score Total 315 5.5 1.32 WADD Prison 288 8.56 5.18 Comparison 105 8.97 2.71 .04 Direct Digit Score Total 393 8.67 4.65 WASPANDI Prison 227 3.58 1.35 .19* Comparison 88 4.1 1.17
Inverse Digit Span Score Total 315 3.72 1.32 WADI Prison 288 6.24 4.32 Comparison 105 7.15 2.33 .11 Inverse Digit Score Total 393 6.48 3.91 WASPANDC Prison 227 4.41 1.40 Comparison 88 4.69 1.41 .10 Increasing Digit Span Score Total 315 4.49 1.41 Prison 227 6.22 2.17 WADC 38 Comparison 88 6.93 2.42 .15 Increasing Digit Score Total 315 6.42 2.26 *p<.05
Figure 10. Mean scores and 95%CI for the Inverse Digits task.
e) Finally, the predictive value of the neuropsychological tests that showed the greatest differential effect in relation to the reading and calculation variables was estimated in a part of the sample, through the adjustment of two regression models. In the case of reading performance, measured through the Reading Comprehension Test, the variables that best predicted it were the perseverative errors of the TMT-B and the Interference of Words by Color of the Stroop task (R2 = .15), variables related to the attentional domain. In the case of calculation, the best model selected included
Matrices, Inverse Digits and Porteus Q (R2 = .29), variables related to working memory and planning.
c) Results of Intellectual Product 3
Following the scheme of the previous section referring to Intellectual Product 2, a first analysis was carried out to estimate the premorbid level and the contrast in 39 the demographic variables (Table 11). A descriptive difference in age was observed, being higher in the group of prisoners than in the comparison and there were no statistically significant differences between prisoners with and without juvenile justice records. A similar pattern was observed in relation to the Vocabulary variable. This was the case of the Matrices variable, where differences between the three groups were observed. This difference is especially relevant given that it was one of the predictors of performance in calculation.
Table 11: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in age, vocabulary and matrices ES Variables Group N Mean SD (η2) Comparison 114 34.09 13.88 AGE Prison 216 39.73 11.78 0,03* Juvenile Records 82 37.26 12.64 C-P Total 402 37.75 12.73 Comparison 105 14.48 5.630 0,12* MATRICES Prison 204 10.01 5.329 C-P Juvenile Records 82 9.91 5.269 C-A Total 391 11.19 5.742 Comparison 105 25.41 14.010 VOCABULARY Prison 205 18.76 11.029 0,05* Juvenile Records 82 21.65 10.014 C-P Total 392 21.15 12.015 Note: In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
In addition, a cognitive domain analysis was performed again in which the following could be observed: a) The analysis of the attentional domain can be seen in Table 12. It includes the scores of the Stroop test (word, color and interference) and of the TMT in its versions A and B, as well as the average reaction times and the errors of the CPT. The pattern was similar to the previous one, although on this occasion there were statistically significant differences in the group with Juvenile Records such as 40 minors in Stroop and CPT, but not in the TMT, the statistical differences between the groups even disappearing.
Table 12: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the attentional area. Color and Word Test (SPD), Trail Making Test (TMT) and Continuous Performance Test (CPT)
Variables Group N Mean SD ES (η2)
Comparison 102 86.99 28.871 Prison 201 83.66 29.831 0.042* SPD Juvenile P-A Word 77 70.36 24.329 Records C-A Total 380 81.86 29.087 Comparison 102 66.77 15.681 Prison 201 64.91 20.741 SPD Juvenile 0.009 Color 77 61.55 16.502 Records Total 380 64.73 18.718 Comparison 102 18.251 38.3805 Prison 201 15.911 37.5078 0.026* SPD Juvenile C-P Interference 77 33.181 51.7385 Records C-A Total 380 20.039 41.4337
Comparison 102 47.82 28.362 Prison 203 48.51 27.497 TMTPA Juvenile 0.003 80 44.38 32.196 Records Total 385 47.47 28.725 Comparison 102 112.17 73.974 Prison 199 95.88 60.827 41 TMTPB Juvenile 0.011 76 101.45 70.340 Records Total 377 101.41 66.729 Comparison 102 0.10 0.386 Prison 203 0.11 0.388 TMEPA Juvenile 0.02 80 0.29 0.845 Records Total 385 0.15 0.520 Comparison 102 0.32 1.064 TMTB Prison 199 0.61 1.347 Perseverativ Juvenile 0.011 76 0.66 1.381 e error Records Total 377 0.54 1.288 Comparison 102 0.25 0.989 TMTB Prison 203 0.33 0.677 Non Juvenile 0.002 perseverativ 80 0.33 0.522 Records e error Total 385 0.30 0.746 Comparison 66 4.32 4.893 CPT Prison 128 5.85 12.874 Commission Juvenile 0.006 38 4.13 7.778 error Records Total 232 5.13 10.402
Comparison 66 4.03 9.110 CPT Prison 128 4.70 7.691 Omission Juvenile 0.003 38 3.53 7.911 error Records Total 232 4.31 8.130 Comparison 65 398.48 96.084 CPT_ Prison 128 480.62 113.568 42 0.111* Mean TR Juvenile 38 435.98 68.977 C-P successes Records Total 231 450.16 108.445 Note: In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
b) In the area of Planning (Table 13), the pattern in which prisoners performed the labyrinth task worse was repeated, in addition to needing more time and movements in the Tower of London planning task, although this pattern was only statistically significant in the case of those with juvenile records and in relation to the time spent.
Table 13: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the Planning area
Variables Group N Mean SD ES (η2)
Comparison 83 22.65 24.14 Prison 169 32.80 31.98 0.024* LPPQ Juvenile Records 57 25.84 25.13 C-P Total 309 28.79 29.13 Comparison 82 65.75 10.53 TOL Prison 169 73.84 18.68 0.047* Movements Juvenile Records 55 70.16 10.80 C-P Total 306 71.01 15.95 TOL Comparison 82 216.27 119.70 0.084* Time Prison 169 345.94 216.32 C-P
Juvenile Records 55 300.64 139.21 C-A Total 306 303.05 189.88 Note - TOL: Tower of London Test and LPPQ: Porteus Labyrinth Q Score. In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
c) In the area of cognitive flexibility, the pattern found previously was maintained, although the group with juvenile records did not generate statistically significant differences in the tasks of phonetic verbal fluency, 43 they did for semantics, being with the comparison group and not among the groups of prisoners. (Table 14).
Table 14: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in cognitive flexibility area
Variables Group N Mean SD ES (η2)
Comparison 102 10.46 4.524 Prison 203 8.74 4.380 0.026* CO_F-M Juvenile 81 9.42 4.547 C-P Records Total 386 9.34 4.501 Comparison 102 9.91 4.459 Prison 203 8.55 5.059 CO_A-R Juvenile 0.014 81 9.04 4.459 Records Total 386 9.01 4.807 Comparison 102 11.26 4.907 Prison 203 9.28 4.307 0.034* CO_S-P Juvenile 81 10.19 4.379 C-P Records Total 386 9.99 4.554 Comparison 102 10.55 4.299 Prison 206 8.73 4.265 0.071* FAS-Media Juvenile 81 9.68 4.138 C-P Records Total 389 9.40 4.307
Comparison 102 18.69 4.772 0.033* CO Prison 203 15.77 4.806 Juvenile C-P Animals 82 15.67 4.338 Records C-A Total 387 16.52 4.867 Comparison 102 -8.13 3.643 0.033* FAS Prison 203 -6.91 3.952 Juvenile C-P Animals 81 -6.06 4.430 Records C-A 44 Total 386 -7.05 4.035 Note.- CO and FA: Controlled Oral Word Association Test. In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
1) Statistically significant differences were observed in relation to working memory, being smaller for those imprisoned without a record (Inverse Digits), although they were within the levels of normality (Table 15). There were no statistically significant differences for short-term memory span (Direct Digits).
Table 15: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the memory area (Digits of WAIS IV Test)
Variables Group N Mean SD ES(η2)
Comparison 88 5.64 1.408 Prison 163 5.42 1.305 WASPANDD 0.005 Juvenile Records 64 5.50 1.272 Total 315 5.50 1.327 Comparison 105 8.97 2.719 Prison 206 8.42 2.526 WADD 0.003 Juvenile Records 82 8.91 8.884 Total 393 8.67 4.656 WASPANDI Comparison 88 4.10 1.175 0.03*
Prison 163 3.52 1.269 C-P Juvenile Records 64 3.72 1.568 Total 315 3.72 1.329 Comparison 105 7.15 2.336 Prison 206 6.05 2.259 0.01* WADI Juvenile Records 82 6.70 7.280 C-P Total 393 6.48 3.911 45 Comparison 88 4.69 1.417 Prison 163 4.31 1.408 WASPANDC 0.01 Juvenile Records 64 4.64 1.373 Total 315 4.49 1.410 Comparison 88 6.93 2.420 Prison 163 6.10 2.178 0.02* WADC Juvenile Records 64 6.55 2.138 C-P Total 315 6.42 2.262 Note.- In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
Regarding the profile of self-reported clinical symptoms, only the subscales of Hostility and Psychoticism generated statistically significant differences between the comparison group and prisoners, with Hostility marking the differences between prisoners with and without Juvenile Justice backgrounds (Table 16). In addition, in the application of an indirect measure of frontal lobe functioning (Inventory of Prefrontal Symptoms) to part of the sample (Table 16), statistically significant differences were found between the comparison group and the groups of prisoners with and without juvenile justice antecedents in the subscales of Execution (motivational, executive control and attentional problems) but not in the other subscales (social behavior problems and emotional problems). The highest score was that of the comparison group. It is important to emphasize at this point that these subscales correlated with the Social Desirability scale, especially in the comparison sample, which makes us take these results with caution.
Table 16: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the area of self-reported clinical symptomatology
Variables Group N Mean SD ES(η2) SA Comparison 112 3.54 4.161 0.02* Hostility Prison 214 2.43 3.235 C-P Juvenile Records 82 4.09 5.437 P-A 46 Total 408 3.07 4.070 SA Comparison 112 5.26 4.811 Somatization Prison 214 5.93 4.727 0.004 Juvenile Records 82 5.74 4.794 Total 408 5.71 4.760 SA Comparison 112 6.29 5.014 Depression Prison 214 5.75 3.840 0.006 Juvenile Records 82 6.59 5.082 Total 408 6.06 4.454 SA Comparison 112 7.35 4.717 Obsession Compulsion Prison 214 6.57 4.255 0.006 Juvenile Records 82 6.57 4.196 Total 408 6.78 4.378 SA Comparison 112 5.57 4.386 Anxiety Prison 214 5.15 4.140 0.005 Juvenile Records 82 5.89 4.549 Total 408 5.41 4.292 SA Comparison 112 4.89 4.790 Interpersonal Prison 214 4.27 3.773 0.005 Sensitivity Juvenile Records 82 4.79 3.623 Total 408 4.54 4.050 SA Comparison 112 2.40 3.575 Phobic Anxiety Prison 214 2.19 3.389 0.001 Juvenile Records 82 2.38 3.207 Total 408 2.28 3.399 SA Comparison 112 5.85 3.998 Paranoid Ideation Prison 214 6.08 3.981 0.008 Juvenile Records 82 6.84 4.259 Total 408 6.17 4.048 SA Comparison 112 2.36 2.404 0.02*
Psychoticism Prison 214 3.34 2.942 C-P Juvenile Records 82 3.70 3.667 C-A Total 408 3.14 3.006 ISP Comparison 45 83.9 38.536 0.11* Total Prison 153 58.12 28.286 C-P Juvenile Records 51 50.78 29.871 C-A Total 249 61.28 32.488 ISP Comparison 76 11.54 6.830 0.05* Motivational Prison 134 8.89 4.985 47 C-P Problems Juvenile Records 39 8.28 5.021 C-A Total 249 9.60 5.744 ISP Comparison 76 19.84 11.138 0.04* Executive Control Prison 134 15.40 7.819 C-P Problems Juvenile Records 39 15.46 8.191 C-A Total 249 16.76 9.207 ISP Comparison 76 12.53 6.168 Attentional Problems Prison 134 10.08 4.519 0.04* Juvenile Records 39 10.10 5.305 C-P Total 249 10.83 5.295 ISP Comparison 76 12.82 9.649 Social Behavior Prison 134 13.11 8.158 0.014 Problems Juvenile Records 39 10.23 7.432 Total 249 12.57 8.565 ISP Comparison 76 11.09 6.882 Emotional Control Prison 134 10.43 6.271 0.003 Problems Juvenile Records 39 10.15 7.365 Total 249 10.59 6.622 Note.- ISP: Inventory of Prefrontal Symptoms, SA: Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire. In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
In the area of personality, psychopathy was evaluated, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups considered in primary and total psychopathy, but not in secondary psychopathy. The highest score was obtained in the group of prisoners with a Juvenile Justice background (Table 17). Statistically significant differences were also found in the Impulsivity scale, but above all between the comparison group and that of prisoners, with the exception
of Planned Impulsivity. On the Sensitivity to Punishment and Reward scales, a statistically significant lower score was observed in the group of prisoners with minor antecedents, both in relation to the group of the rest of the prisoners and to the comparison group (Table 17), although these results should be interpreted with caution since there is a high correlation with the Social Desirability scale, both in prisoners and in the comparison group.
48 Table 17: Descriptives and size of the effect of the difference (ES) in the personality area
Variables Group N Mean SD ES(η2) Comparison 114 35.40 6.363 Prison 219 35.91 7.791 0.03* LSRPS Juvenile 82 38.70 6.232 C-P Primary Psychopathy Records P-A Total 415 36.32 7.214 Comparison 114 22.75 4.655 Prison 219 22.30 5.908 LSRPS Juvenile 82 23.12 5,800 0.003 Secondary Psychopathy Records Total 415 22.59 5.567 Comparison 114 58.16 8.926 Prison 219 58.21 12.271 LSRPS 0.02* Juvenile 82 61.82 10.297 Total Psychopathy P-A Records Total 415 58.91 11.129 Comparison 111 17.63 4.688 Prison 214 16.14 4.747 BIS-11 0.02 Juvenile 82 16.17 4.337 Cognitive Impulsivity C-P Records Total 407 16.55 4.687 Comparison 111 21.94 5.839 Prison 214 19.58 5.994 BIS-11 0.03* Juvenile 82 21.11 5.319 Motor Impulsivity C-P Records Total 407 20.53 5.900
Comparison 111 25.29 7.523 Prison 214 21.82 8.229 0.04* BIS-11 Juvenile 82 21.94 7.634 C-P Unplanned Impulsivity Records C-A Total 407 22.79 8.052 Comparison 111 64.86 15.941 Prison 214 57.54 17.055 BIS-11 0.035* Juvenile 82 59.22 14.866 Total Impulsivity C-P Records 49 Total 407 59.87 16.592 Comparison 75 21.79 12.985 SPSQR Prison 135 22.42 13.660 0.05* Sensitivity to Juvenile 39 14.10 8.843 P-A Punishment Records C-A Total 249 20.93 13.110 Comparison 75 20.89 14.442 Prison 135 22.73 14.034 SPSQR 0.04* Juvenile 39 15.13 9.359 Sensitivity to Reward P-A Records Total 249 20.98 13.752 Comparison 114 31.45 15.632 Prison 218 31.27 15.030 SPSQR Juvenile 82 29.27 14.017 0.003 Total Records Total 414 30.92 14.993 Note.- LSRPS: Levenson´s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, BAS-11; Barrat Impulsivity scale, SPSQR: Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire. In the case of statistically significant differences, it is indicated which groups Comparison (C), Prison (P) and Juvenile Records (A) contain the differences (*p<.05).
d) Discussion of the results of Intellectual Products 2 and 3
The results obtained indicate that there is a lower executive functioning of the prisoners compared to the comparison group, without having a clinical character. This lower profile is not pathological and could indicate that there is less development of the dorsolateral area of the prefrontal area, possibly because they are people who have grown up in cognitively impoverished environments.
In general, there is a deficit in visomotor processing speed and in reading speed, but it does not affect the execution, as they invest more time, but give the correct answer. In the tests related to reasoning the prisoners show a rather low level that hinders their learning processes. In this sense it would be opportune to train, both with verbal and non-verbal material in this type of task, because of the repercussions it would have on the academic life of the learner (i.e. Mathematics,
Language, etc.). 50 It is also important because of the repercussions in the academic field that the working memory score is below the comparison group, although within normal levels, while the short-term memory span is correct. This implies that the capacity to memorize data in the short term is good, but the handling of these data to reach a solution is deficit with respect to the comparison group. The premorbid level is also low, but very close to the comparison group, both below the normalized mean, indicating that differences found between the two groups in other variables cannot be attributed to these scores. There is low fluency in vocabulary and access to lexicon, possibly derived from both the cultural level and the speed problems mentioned above, and which are also related to the development of white matter at an early age). When we include in the analysis the results of those incarcerated with juvenile records, we observe some differential results of interest. Thus, inmates with antecedents present a processing speed similar to that of the comparison group, perform planning tasks better and have greater verbal fluency. This indicates that their pattern is better than that of other inmates in prison. In addition, it is important to highlight the performance of this group in working memory tasks, with acceptable results in both capacity and span, coming very close to the execution of the comparison group. This data relative to prisoners with Juvenile Justice backgrounds could be associated with a training effect at earlier ages, although given the great variability found it cannot not be generalized to the entire group. Likewise, since the sample size is small, it is not advisable to draw general conclusions, but to indicate a line to be explored in the future. Specifically, a relevant fact is the possible anosognosia (lack of perception of their neurological
functional deficits) that all inmates (with and without minor antecedents) present with respect to frontal symptomatology, as reflected in the self-assessment questionnaire scores of prefrontal symptoms. That is, the inmates are not aware of having motivational or attentional deficit or dysfunction or executive control. In addition, this score correlates with the number of errors in planning tasks. These results are very relevant for the intervention, as there is no learning without motivation and without awareness of the deficit. 51 With respect to the relationship between executive functioning and academic performance, the data indicate that execution in reading is associated with the ability to avoid interference and to divide attention without making mistakes, i.e. with attentional control processes. This data is relevant since the group of inmates obtains a more deficient execution than the comparison group in these tasks, so it would be appropriate to include training programs in attentional control in the academic curricula of these populations. In the same line, and with respect to performance in mathematics, it is observed that the tasks that best predict execution in this field are those related to planning, working memory and reasoning. This makes sense because of the need to manipulate information and order in a logical way the sequence of actions involved in performing or learning mathematics. As in the previous point, it is desirable to include in the curricular adaptations for this group, as a prerequisite of the subject of Mathematics, the training of reasoning skills, working memory, and program planning. The psychosocial characteristics of imprisoned people coincide with expectations, highlighting the more criminogenic profiles of inmates with juvenile records and their lower sensitivity to informed reward and punishment. This is of interest because it adds to the fact that, at the same time, these inmates have fewer deficits in the different cognitive areas assessed. The fact that there are practically no self-reported clinical symptoms in both groups or in the comparison group is an indicator of the validity of the results found for executive functions. This study has some limitations due to the great heterogeneity of the sample, both in terms of the group of inmates and the comparison group, and the number
of women who, although less than men, are more than representative of the prison population. However, the available results do allow individual evaluations to be proposed to detect these deficits and interventions, both for the individual and for the group, which will result not only in the academic performance but also in the daily functioning of the inmates and in their social insertion once they are free.
52
3- CONCLUSION
a) The context of intervention in Adult Education in Prison
According to the Working Group on Adult and Inmate Education (WGEPAR) of the Fifth International Conference on Adult Education (https://uil.unesco.org/es/educacion-adultos/confintea/quinta-conferencia- internacional-educacion-adultos-hamburgo-alemania-14) held in Hamburg in July 53 1997, the education of adults in prison is not only a basic human right, but a decisive step towards their social reintegration. Former prisoners participated in this working group and spoke about their experiences and showed that adult education in prisons must go beyond training. They made explicit the need for more learning opportunities in prisons in order to respond adequately to existing demand, recognising the scarcity of funds for adult education in prison, as opposed to other social and prison system demands. GTEPAR, while admitting that more research was needed on these contexts and on how to demonstrate the relationship between adult education in prisons and the reintegration process, established that for the development of more satisfactory education policies, it was necessary to count on: 1) Educational practices that emphasise the personal development of prisoners 2) Professional training that also takes into account aspects such as personal development and a change in attitude. (3) An educational process which begins as soon as the prisoner is sentenced and which continues to provide educational opportunities after release (4) Motivation strategies that take into account various factors such as the attitude not only of educators but also of other prisoners and the creation of appropriate learning environments in prisons. (5) Prison adult education projects that link education to the current social context of the prison and to the social contexts before and after sentencing GTEPAR also considered important issues that currently exist in some prisons but that it would be important to consolidate in a generalized way, such as:
1) Provide prisoners with information and access to different levels of education and training 2) Have a basic national curriculum that can be continued in different prisons 3) Develop and implement comprehensive educational programmes in prisons with the participation of prisoners that meet their educational needs and learning aspirations
4) Develop short-term courses tailored to the needs and conditions of prisoners 54 5) Facilitate the work of non-governmental organizations, teachers and other providers of educational activities within prisons 6) Provide prisoners with access to external educational institutions 7) Encourage initiatives that link courses inside and outside prisons. 8) Consolidate international cooperation in this field 9) Revalue the role of all those who work in prisons by informing them about the benefits of adult education
From the perspective of GTEPAR, it is not only a question of training skills and providing knowledge, but also of inculcating attitudes and values. To this end, it is important to initiate a debate on the meaning of education for adults in prison, in which prisoners should also be involved. They recommend developing specific programmes to train staff responsible for the education of adults in prison so that everyone understands the value and nature of education in that context. They believe that some trained prisoners can be incorporated into the educational team and that NGO support could include designing and/or purchasing educational and teaching materials. Many inmates cannot read or write and among them there is a high percentage of people over the age of 40. For this reason, the prison sentence could be an opportunity to begin, modify or extend their education, understood as the acquisition, not only of a formal qualification necessary to accredit their education, but also of the skills and values necessary for coexistence in the community (Galán, 2015). The Spanish General Penitentiary Organic Law promotes that the educational system available in prison should be the same as that of the external
society. To this end, the Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions carries out actions and makes proposals aimed at improving the participation of inmates and the quality of educational activities in centres such as the following (Galán, 2015): 1) To carry out inaugural and closing acts of the school centre with authorities of the Administration. 2) To formalize the test of formative level on entry of the intern
3) To develop monthly information campaigns on the educational offer to new 55 inmates who enter prison. 4) To facilitate the incorporation during the course to the school avoiding waiting lists 5) To prevent, whenever possible, the transfer of students 6) To make the educational schedule more flexible with respect to occupational and labor activities. 7) To prioritize literacy in primary and secondary school in individualized treatment programs (PITs) for convicted inmates and in individualized intervention models (PDis) for preventive inmates. 8) To reinforce the assistance, involvement and interest of inmates participating in educational activities.
However, security standards and lack of privacy in prison create an educational environment that is not conducive to learning (Blazich, 2007). There is a lot of noise in the cells and common areas of the prison and it is difficult to have the necessary concentration to study. To solve this problem some prisons have created modules for students, but they are more the exception than the rule (Rodríguez, 2006). The alternative is usually modules such as that of respect or therapeutic modules. Other existing problems are not being able to use the Internet inside the prison or, as has happened in Italian prisons, not even the use of the computer without a connection. This fact is important not only in terms of education but also in terms of professional training because currently managing information and communication technologies is a requirement to access the labour market. Therefore, training in this field should be a priority in the reintegration and
resocialization of the subject. As new technologies advance very quickly for those of us who are free, for the person who serves the sentence the gap will be greater if this is not stopped, generating a greater degree of social exclusion (Galán, 2015). In this respect Novo, Barreiro & Varela (2011) carried out a study in several Galician prisons and insertion centres, with a sample of 473 inmates, which provides some conclusions on the need for technological training in prison:
1) There is a positive attitude of the majority of the prison population towards 56 computers. 2) The majority of inmates do not know how to use a computer so training courses should be initiated 3) The group most in need of this training would be those over 30 years of age, as they have less knowledge and are at greater risk of being marginalised. 4) Younger people also need this training because when they leave prison, they will have to look for work in a working context in which the mastery of new technologies is essential.
In penitentiary institutions, educational activities are subject to security regulations. The aim has been to provide schooling for the prison population, understood as formal education, but the feeling of failure resulting from poor achievement has widened the gap between prisoners and other students. Education is not the same as schooling, because education lasts a lifetime, but schooling does not (Caride & Gradaille, 2013). The most progressive pedagogies understand education in prison as an opportunity for the integral development of the person seeking the reinsertion of the inmates, counting on their formative, labor, affective, relational, economic, and cultural disadvantages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) include in the right to education people deprived of liberty. They establish that guaranteeing this right poses a challenge to governments, since it requires teachers who are prepared to work in this context, with their infrastructure, with the conditions derived from the deprivation of liberty and in coordination with the penal system. All of this
necessarily implies the adaptation of educational curricula in terms of both content and methodology. For this reason, they encourage the establishment and expansion of educational programs aimed at people deprived of liberty inside and outside penitentiary establishments, capable of motivating inmates to participate actively in all aspects of education. These adaptations should respond to the needs and interests of prisoners and prepare them to join the community after serving their sentence. In addition, for these programmes to be carried out, they must have 57 the necessary acceptability within the institution on the part of non-teaching prison staff. To this end, the ICESCR recommends: 1) To train prison staff in this regard 2) To develop selection and vocational training procedures and provide the necessary resources and equipment 3) To provide teachers working in prisons with formal training and opportunities for continuing professional development 4) The evaluation and supervision of all education programmes in prisons should be carried out by the competent public administration 5) The development and provision of appropriate teaching materials should be encouraged. 6) To provide the necessary infrastructure to create an appropriate learning environment. Such infrastructure includes not only classrooms, teaching materials, libraries, but also computer and information technology services. Martín, Vila & de Oña (2013) insist on the need to introduce changes in the organizational model of education for adults in prison: 1) To coordinate normative aspects and educational programs developed by external entities, with the rest of the treatment programs. 2) To plan and implement in an integrated manner the processes of formal, non-formal and informal education that are generated during life in prison. To this end, the various professional profiles must agree on a common educational model and coordinate their tasks of tutorial support for prisoners. 3) To promote spaces for formative evaluation of the different treatment interventions.
4) To orient intervention programmes towards the development of the social competences of socially responsible and participatory people as the basic (but not exclusive) content of the social reintegration function. This implies developing forms of organisation in which prisoners establish and share internal rules of coexistence, self-management of collective activities and tasks (e.g., modules of respect).
5) That the Administration's educational support teams are also present in 58 prison. This presence will result in the quality of the service, since it will allow, in many cases, curricular adaptations, attention to people with learning problems or with special educational needs, orientation with respect to educational programs for the acquisition of social skills, as well as the incardination of formal and regulated education actions with the rest of the treatment programs.
It is evident that there is a series of circumstances that hinder the development of any educational process in the penitentiary context, such as for example (Martín, 2006): 1) The high ratio of educator to people deprived of liberty. 2) The fact that the institutions consider the educational processes as something exceptional, subordinated to the questions of regime and security. 3) The resistance of the prisoners themselves, who do not perceive that their participation in educational activities brings them any benefit. 4) The instability of the group of prisoners, as transfers to other prisons and releases are frequent. 5) The cultural deficit of prisoners, which hinders the implementation of any educational event, as the beneficiaries do not perceive the meaning of the educational processes.
Added to these circumstances is the fact that prisons have a series of undesirable negative effects on people (Martín, Vila & de Oña, 2013):
1) Establishment of life regimes that discourage and de-socialise. Tensions and conflicts related to the hierarchical subculture of interned people and the need to adapt to formal rules. 2) Physical and psychological consequences of previous problems. 3) Socialization in a context of justification of delinquency and normalization of exclusion.
Valderrama (2013) analyzed, from a qualitative-ethnographic approach, the 59 perceptions of prisoners on the relationship between education and treatment in prison. Its conclusions include the following: 4) Prisoners valued the need for education, both as an element for personal development and to make prison time useful for their reintegration into society. 5) They associate education with the formal education provided at the Adult Education Centre. 6) They understand that the school is a legal need that must be covered and that the institution takes advantage of it to project the re-educating image of the prison to society. 7) They affirm that in prison there is no relationship between education and treatment and believe that this is due to the lack of interest on the part of those responsible for the centres in providing prisoners with the minimum conditions for study (having stability in the centre; having modular libraries, study rooms, flexible schedules; or encouraging socio-educational activities to be valued in the same way as occupying a destination, etc.). 8) They propose, as an alternative to this lack of relationship, the recognition of the value of the educational action of the prison.
b) The training of executive functions in the school context and its application
In view of the curricular adaptations that could be made so that education for adults in prison would allow for the objectives outlined above, the studies described above recommend the inclusion of training in executive functions as a prerequisite.
Research on the subject indicates that EFs can be improved not only in children but also in older people and therefore throughout the life cycle (Diamond, 2013). Reviews so far indicate that the best procedures for training children's EFs are the CogMed computer program, the combination of computer and interactive games, Taekwondo, Tai-chi, Chinese mind-body practices, Quadrato motor training, curriculum complements such as Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies
(PATHS) and the Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) (Diamond and Ling, 60 in press). The studies on which these reviews are based include control group designs and pre-post-test measures. Diamond & Ling (2016), for example, reviewed 84 studies that met these rigorous scientific criteria on: computer training, games, aerobics, endurance training, martial arts, yoga, mindfulness, theater, and school curricula. Diamond and Ling (in press) extended this sample to 179 studies from 193 publications in what is so far the most extensive review of the different approaches available for training executive functions in both children and adults and obtained similar results. Other procedures appear to be effective, but there are no empirical studies to prove their effectiveness or the studies on which they are based lack the methodological requirements to draw conclusions. While their effectiveness may seem logical, it does not mean that they are effective until proven. What is known with certainty is that there are a number of principles that are fulfilled regardless of the training procedure (Diamond, 2012, 2013; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Diamong & Ling, 2016; Diamong & Ling, in press). 1) The people with the most deficits benefit the most from training. 2) Effectiveness depends on the time spent practicing. If the training is part of the academic curriculum in a transversal way, it is more effective than if it is an independent module. 3) In order for a procedure to be effective it is necessary to increase the level of demand continuously, otherwise the task becomes boring and the interest is lost; if there is no challenge, the improvement is stopped. 4) The more demanding the task and the conditions of the task the greater the improvements.
5) Once the practice stops the benefits diminish. 6) Effectiveness depends on how the task is presented and carried out. The characteristics of the person implementing the programme and the support of the community and/or institution influence its effectiveness, so that the same intervention may be effective in one context and ineffective in another. In Trulson's (1986) study which trained juvenile delinquents in taekwondo, those
who received emphasis not only on physical exercise but also on character 61 development and self-control showed less anxiety, less aggressive behavior, more social skills, and more self-esteem. Those who only received emphasis on physical fitness showed more aggressive and delinquent behavior and a decrease in social skills and self-esteem. 7) Exercise alone, without any cognitive component, does not increase executive functioning. 8) The transfer of computer training into working memory or reasoning is reduced. In the case of task-shifting training, traditional martial arts, and school curricula, it is greater because the training is more global. 9) The improvement of executive functioning is greater if, in addition to cognitive training per se, emotional and social development issues are addressed in combination with physical exercise. 10) As stress, sadness, loneliness and health problems negatively affect executive functions, the most effective trainings will be those that not only directly train executive functions but also indirectly do so, improving these characteristics that negatively affect them. 11) The reasons why improvement occurs are not obvious and in some cases seem counterintuitive.
On the other hand, academic curricula that improve executive functioning have a number of characteristics in common (Diamond, 2012): 1) They exercise executive functions and challenge people to do so at increasingly higher levels. 2) Reduce stress in the classroom
3) Do not embarrass the person in the classroom 4) Cultivate joy, pride and self-confidence 5) They are based on an active and practical learning approach. 6) Integrate people who progress at different speeds 7) Emphasize character development as well as academic development 8) Emphasize verbal language
9) Involve students in the teaching of peers 62 10) Promote skills and social bonds
Executive functions can be trained by teachers who are given the necessary training and support in the public education system, in regular classes, with equipment that does not have to be expensive. In the children's context, academic curricula such as Montesory and Tools of the Mind are currently available, as well as support programs such as Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) and the Chicago School Readiness Project (Diamond & Lee, 2011). In the context of adult education we do not know of any such experiences, let alone adult education with NEAE in prison. The closest to these issues has been developed in the context of cognitive stimulation, understood as the set of techniques and strategies that are aimed at improving the performance and effectiveness of different cognitive abilities and executive functions. This approach known as "brain training" has been widely used in the field of aging, even associated with widely disseminated software, despite having been criticized for lack of empirical support (Owen et al., 2010; Papp et al., 2009; Redick et al., 2013). However, more recent reviews explore the type of evidence by finding some programmes with some established evidence that can serve as a guide (Shah, Weinborn, Verdile et al., 2017). In this sense, use can be made of cognitive stimulation exercise notebooks such as, for example, the classic paper and pencil notebooks such as the Esteve cognitive stimulation exercise notebooks (https://www.estevefarma.com/paciente- cuidador/cuadernos-de-ejercicios-de-estimulacion-cognitiva) or the cognitive stimulation exercise notebook to reinforce the memory of the Consorci Sanitari
Integral (https://www.csi.cat/ciutadans/documents-de-salut/es_manuals-i-guies/). The Rubio cognitive stimulation notebooks (https://cuadernos.rubio.net/colecciones/estimulacion-cognitiva) are also available in different establishments and even through the web. Brain training games such as Lumosity, Elevate brain Training, NeuroNation, Fit Brains Trainer, Peak, Cognifit, among others, are also available and are included in the reviews cited. Of more recent appearance are the online platforms 63 for cognitive stimulation exercises (e.g., NeuronUP, Kwido or Mementia) and that known as Neurotechnology for cognitive stimulation like Elevvo, neurotechnology for cognitive improvement developed by Bitbrain. In this way, the procedure to follow could be to explore the areas of interest for the detection of executive dysfunction and other cognitive impairments. Although this research has used the material and versions indicated in the annex, and which have been given by the nature of the research carried out, for the purpose of their use in prison in individualized evaluations free neuropsychological evaluation software that we have used for some tests would be more appropriate, since as a whole it covers much of the needs that could occur in the context of adult education in prison. This software is available at: http://pebl.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PEBL_Test_Battery. After this evaluation and depending on the results obtained, a series of training sessions could be planned in those deficient areas that can be trained with the tools described above or their adaptations and taking into account some recommendations derived from our study, such as these: 1) To work on the anosognosy of the deficits so that the participant is aware of their difficulties and to emphasize the importance of working these skills not only in relation to school performance but also in relation to daily life in prison and back in the community. 2) Work on learning with problems. In this way you will be able to do planning training, as long as the levels of flexibility and memory are appropriate. 3) Work with practical cases, increasing reasoning capacity and expanding working memory.
4) Detect and train those with the greatest deficit. 5) Start such measures with the youngest inmates.
64
4- BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Alm, J. y Andersson, J. (1997). A study of literacy in prisons in Uppsala. Dyslexia, 3, 245−246. Andrews, D. y Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5ª Ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Artiles, C. y Jiménez, J. E. (2011). PCA: Prueba de Cálculo Aritmético. En C. 65 Artiles y J.E. Jiménez, (Comps.), Normativización de instrumentos para la detección e identificación de las necesidades educativas del alumnado con trastorno por déficit de atención con o sin hiperactividad (TDAH) o alumnado con dificultades específicas de aprendizaje (DEA) (págs. 13-26). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Dirección General de Ordenación e Innovación Educativa. Artunduaga, M. (2008). Variables que influyen en el rendimiento académico en la Universidad. Recuperado de: https://es.slideshare.net/1234509876/variables-del-rendimiento-acadmico- universidad Baglivio, M.T., Wolff, K.T., Jackowski, K. y Greenwald, M.A. (2015). A Multilevel Examination of Risk/Need Change Scores, Community Context, and Successful Reentry of Committed Juvenile Offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 1-24. Barkley, R.A. (2001). The executive functions and self-regulation: An evolutionary neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychology Review, 11, 1-29. Benton, A.L. y Hamsher, K. (1989). Multilingual Aphasia Examination (2ª Ed). Iowa City (IA): AJA Associates. Best, J. R., Miller, P. H. y Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample. Learning and individual differences, 21, 327- 336. Blair, C. y Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.
Blazich, G. (2007). La educación en contextos de encierro. Revista Iberoamericana de educación, 44, 53-60. Brower, M.C. y Price. B.H. (2001). Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in violent and criminal behaviour: A critical review. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 71, 720–726. Cabrera, L. (2016). Revisión sistemática de la producción española sobre
rendimiento académico entre 1980 y 2011. Revista Complutense de 66 Educación, 27, 119-139. Caride, J.A. y Gradaílle, R. (2013). Educar en las cárceles: nuevos desafíos para la educación social en las instituciones penitenciarias. Revista de Educación, 360, 36-47. Cashin, A., Potter, E. y Butler, T. (2008). The relationship between exercise and hopelessness in prison. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 15, 66–71. Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K. y Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality, 13, 69–88. Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J. y Olson, R. K. (2012). Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 470–488. Cragg, L. y Gilmore, C. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics: The role of executive function skills in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3, 63–68. Cragg, L., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., Roome, H. E. y Gilmore, C. (2017). Direct and indirect influences of executive functions on mathematics achievement. Cognition, 162, 12-26. Crowne, D.P. y Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Daucourt, M. C., Schatschneider, C., Connor, C. M., Al Otaiba, S. y Hart, S. A.
(2018). Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting Predict Reading Disability Symptoms in a Hybrid Model: Project KIDS. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J. y Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education. A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Santa Mónica, CA:
Rand Co. 67 Davison, M.K., Bershadsky, B., Bieber, J., Silversmith, D., Maruish, M.E., y Kane, R.L. (1997). Development of a brief, multidimensional, self-report instrument for treatment outcomes assessment in psychiatric settings: Preliminary findings. Assessment, 4, 259-276. De Beni, R. y Palladino, P. (2000). Intrusion errors in working memory tasks: are they related to reading comprehension ability? Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 131–143. Dekker, M. C., Ziermans, T. B., Spruijt, A. M., & Swaab, H. (2017). Cognitive, parent and teacher rating measures of executive functioning: shared and unique influences on school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive Functions. Current directions in psychological science, 21, 335–341. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135– 168. Diamond, A. y Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old Science, 333, 959-964. Diamond, A. y Ling, D.S. (en prensa). Fundamental questions surrounding efforts to improve executive functions (including working memory). En M. Bunting, J Novick, M. Dougherty y R.W. Engle, R.W. (Comps.), An integrative approach to cognitive and working memory training: perspectives from psychology, neuroscience, and human development. Oxford University Press, Nueva York, NY. Diamond, A. y Ling. D.S. (2016) Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those
that, despite much hype, do not. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 18, 34–48. Elger, B. S. (2009). Prison life: television, sports, work, stress and insomnia in a remand prison. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 74–83. Franganillo, J., Burgos, L., García, A. y Tomás, C. (2006, Noviembre). Alfabetización digital en la prisión: una experiencia con jóvenes internos.
Comunicación presentada al II Congreso Internacional de Alfabetización 68 Tecnológica. Badajoz, Texto disponible en http://eprints.rclis.org/8538/1/franganillo2006.pdf Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H. y van Luit, J. E. H. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44. Galán, F. (2015). Los módulos de respeto: Una alternativa al tratamiento penitenciario. Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Georgiou, G. K. y Das, J. P. (2016). What component of executive functions contributes to normal and impaired reading comprehension in young adults? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49, 118-128. Gilbert, S.J. y Burgess, P.W. (2008). Executive function. Current Biology, 18, 110- 114. Gil-Fenoy, M. J., García-García, J., Carmona-Samper, E. y Ortega-Campos, E. (2018). Conducta antisocial y funciones ejecutivas de jóvenes infractores. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23, 70–76. Glueck, S. y Glueck, E. T. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Golden, C. J. (1994). STROOP: Test de colores y palabras: Manual. Madrid: TEA. González, R., Valle, A., Suárez, J.M. y Fernández, A.P. (1999). Un modelo integrador explicativo de las relaciones entre metas académicas, estrategias de aprendizaje y rendimiento académico. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 17, 47-70. Huizinga, M., Baeyens, D. y Burack, J. A. (2018). Editorial: Executive Function and Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
Imbo, I., y Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Instruction and load effects on high-skill and low-skill individuals: A study in the domain of mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 964-989. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2010). PISA 2009. Programa para la evaluación internacional de los alumnos. OCDE. Informe español. Madrid: MECD.
Ireland, J. L. y Culpin, V. (2006). The relationship between sleeping problems and 69 aggression, anger, and impulsivity in a population of juvenile and young offenders. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 649–655. Jacob, R. y Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 85, 512-552. Jensen, J., Lindgren, M., Meurling, A. W., Ingvar, D. H. y Levander, S. (1999). Dyslexia among Swedish inmates in relation to neuropsychology and personality. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 452−461. Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., Loeber, R. y Hill, K. G. (2017). Systematic review of early risk factors for life-course-persistent, adolescence-limited, and late-onset offenders in prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 15–23. Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J., Zhang, D. y Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 24, 177–196. Keith, J. y McCray, A. (2002). What about the girls? Delinquency programming as if gender mattered. Corrections Today, 63, 38–44. Kim, R.H., y Clark, D. (2013). The effect of prison-based college education programs on recidivism: Propensity score matching approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 196-204. Leone, P. E., Christle, C. A., Nelson, C.M., Skiba, R., Frey, A. y Jolivette, K. (2003). School failure, race, and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerabilities for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system.
University of Maryland: National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A. y Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158. Lezak, M.D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University
Press. 70 Lindgren, M., Jensen, J., Dalteg, A., Meurling, A. W., Ingvar, D. H. y Levander, S. (2002). Dyslexia and AD/HD among Swedish Prison Inmates. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 3, 84–95. Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H. y Cutting, L. E. (2010). Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 441-454. Martín, V., Vila, E. y de Oña, J.M. (2013). La investigación educativa en el ámbito de las instituciones penitenciarias: panorámica, desafíos y propuestas. Revista de Educación, 360, pp. 16-35. Meijers, J., Harte, J. M., Meynen, G. y Cuijpers, P. (2017). Differences in executive functioning between violent and non-violent offenders. Psychological Medicine, 47, 1784–1793. Meijers, J., Harte, J.M., Meynen, G., Cuijpers, P. y Scherder, E.J.A. (2018) Reduced Self-Control after 3 Months of Imprisonment; A Pilot Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Meijers. J., Harte, J.M., Jonker, F.A. y Meynen, G. (2015). Prison brain? Executive dysfunction in prisoners. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-6. Messer, D., Henry, L. A. y Nash, G. (2016). The relation between executive functioning, reaction time, naming speed, and single word reading in children with typical development and language impairments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 412-428. Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A. y Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100. Monchi, O., Petrides, M., Strafella, A., Worsley, K. y Doyon, J. (2006). Functional role of the basal ganglia in the planning and execution of actions. Annals of Neurology, 59, 257–264. Morgan, A. B. y Lilienfeld, S.O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation
between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive 71 function. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 113–336. Mulder, H. y Cragg, L. (2014). Executive functions and academic achievement: Current research and future directions. Infant and Child Development, 23, 1- 3. Mulder, H., Verhagen, J., Van der Ven, S.H.G., Slot, P.L. y Leseman, P.P.M. (2017) Early Executive Function at Age Two Predicts Emergent Mathematics and Literacy at Age Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Nayfeld, I., Fuccillo, J. y Greenfield, D. B. (2013). Executive functions in early learning: Extending the relationship between executive functions and school readiness to science. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 81–88. Novo, I., Barreiro, M. y Varela, L. (2011). Las TIC como instrumento de inclusión social a través de la formación académica y profesional en los centros penitenciarios: análisis de las percepciones de la población reclusa en la región de Galicia, España. Inclusão Social, 5, 58-67. Ogilvie, J.M., Stewart, A.L., Chan, R.C.K. y Shum, D.H.K. (2011). Neuropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 49, 1063 -1107. Oquendo, M. A., Baca-García, E., Graver, R., Morales, M., Montalvan, V. y Mann, J. (2001). Spanish adaptation of the Barratt impulsiveness scale (BIS- 11). European Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 147-155. Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S. y Ballard, C. G. (2010). Putting Brain Training to the Test [Poniendo el entrenamiento cerebral a prueba]. Nature, 465, 775-778. doi: 10.1038/nature09042
Palmer, S. M. (2012). Postsecondary correctional education. Recognizing and overcoming barriers to success. Adult Learning, 23, 4163-4169. Papp, K. V., Walsh, S. J. y Snyder, P. J. (2009). Immediate and Delayed Effects of Cognitive Interventions in Healthy Elderly: A Review of Current Literature and Future. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 5(1), 50-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.10.008Papp et al., 2009.
Paschall, M. J. y Fishbein, D.H. (2002). Executive cognitive functioning and 72 aggression: A public health perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 215–235. Paschall, M. J. y Fishbein, D.H. (2002). Executive cognitive functioning and aggression: A public health perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 215–235. Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S. y Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of clinical psychology, 51, 768-774. Picton, T.W., Stuss, D.T., Alexander, M.P., Shallice, T., Binns, M.A. y Gillingham, S. (2007). Effects of focal frontal lesions on response inhibition. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 826-838. Porteus, S. D. (2006). Laberintos de Porteus (4ª edición revisada). Madrid: TEA. Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A. y Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 110–122. Rapoport, S., Rubinsten, O. y Katzir, T. (2016). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Regarding the Role of Executive Functions in Reading and Arithmetic. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., … Engle, R. W. (2013). No Evidence of Intelligence Improvement after Working Memory Training: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 142(2), 359-379.doi: 10.1037/a0029082. Reitan, R.M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual Motor Skills, 8, 271-276.
Roberts, A.C., Robbins, T.W. y Weiskrantz, L. (1998). The Prefrontal Cortex: Executive and Cognitive Functions. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Rodríguez, A. (2006). Prisión y derecho a la educación. UNED. Anuario de la Escuela de Práctica Jurídica, 1, 2-12. Rosvold, H.E., Mirsky, A.F., Sarason, I., Bransome, E.D. y Beck, L.H. (1956). A continuous performance test of brain damage. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 20, 343-350. 73 Roth, B. B., Asbjørnsen, A., y Manger, T. (2017). The relationship between prisoners’ academic self-efficacy and participation in education, previous convictions, sentence length, and portion of sentence served. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 3, 106-121 Ruiz•Sánchez de León, J.M., Pedrero•Pérez, E.J., Lozoya•Delgado, P., Llanero•Luque, M., Rojo•Mota, G. y Puerta•García, C. (2012). Inventario de síntomas prefrontales para la evaluación clínica de las adicciones en la vida diaria: proceso de creación y propiedades psicométricas. Revista de Neurologia, 54, 649•63. Scherder, E. J. A., Bogen, T., Eggermont, L. H. P., Hamers, J. P. H. y Swaab, D. F. (2010). The more physical inactivity, the more agitation in dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 22, 1203–1208. Seguin, J. R. (2008). The frontal lobe and aggression. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 1–20. Shah, T.M., Weinborn, M., Verdile, G. et al.(2017). Neuropsychol Rev 27: 62. Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments in planning. Philosophical Transcripts of the Royal Society of London, 298, 199-209. St Clair-Thompson, H.L. y Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 745–759. Talbot, J. y Riley, C. (2007). No one knows: Offenders with learning difficulties and learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 154-161.
Taylor, J. y Lindsay, W (2010). Understanding and treating offenders with learning disabilities: a review of recent developments. Journal of Learning Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 1, 5-16. Tejedor, F. J., Sabucedo, J. M., Sobral, J., Serrano, G. y Caride, J. A. (1991). Factores personales y contextuales: su influencia sobre el rendimiento académico. Santiago de Compostela: Tórculo Ediciones.
Thompson, K. C. y Morris, R. J. (2013). Predicting recidivism among juvenile 74 delinquents: Comparison of risk factors for male and female offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Thompson, K. C. y Morris, R. J. (2016). Characteristics of juvenile delinquents. En R.J.R. Levesque (Comps.), Advancing responsible adolescent development series: Vol.1. Juvenile delinquency and disability (págs. 9-30). Nueva York: Springer. Tomás-Miquel, J. V., Expósito-Langa, M. y Sempere-Castelló, S. (2014). Determinantes del rendimiento académico en los estudiantes de grado. Un estudio en administración y dirección de empresas. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 32, 379-392. Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J. y Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837-862. Valderrama, P. (2013). La micropolítica de la función reeducadora en prisión. Revista de Educación, 360, 69-90. Verdejo-García, A. y Bechara, A. (2010). Neuropsicología de las funciones ejecutivas. Psicothema, 22, 227-235. Von Suchodoletz, A., Fäsche, A. y Skuballa, I. T. (2017). The Role of Attention Shifting in Orthographic Competencies: Cross-Sectional Findings from 1st, 3rd, and 8th Grade Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Wechsler, D. (2012). WAIS-IV. Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para adultos- IV. Manual de aplicación y corrección. Madrid: NCS Pearson, Inc.
Woodall, J., Dixey, R. y South, J. (2013). Control and choice in English prisons: developing health-promoting prisons. Health Promot. Int. 29, 474–482. Yeniad, N., Malda, M., Mesman, J., van Izendoorn, M. H. y Pieper, S. (2013). Shifting ability predicts math and reading performance in children: A meta- analytical study. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 1-9.
75
Appendix: Tests used according to country and technical specifications for the evaluation of executive functions
A) Neuropsychological evaluation tests. - Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT-FAS) (Benton & Hamsher, 1989). Benton, A. L., & Hamsher, K. (1989). Multilingual Aplasia Examination, 2nd ed. Iowa City: Department of Neurology and Psychology, The University of Iowa. 76 https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/222
- Test of Colors and Words (STROOP) (Golden, 1994). Spanish -STROOP. Test of Colors and Words. Madrid: TEA Ediciones Portuguese -Fernandes, S. (2013). STROOP: Teste de Cores e Palavras. Manual (CEGOC- TEA., Ed.). Lisbon
- Tower of London (TOL) (Shallice, 1982). http://pebl.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PEBL_Test_Battery
- Trail Making Test (TMT) (Reitan, 1958). Lezak et al. (2004) noted that TMT is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. In addition to Lezak et al. (2004), it can be obtained on different websites, by way of example: http://apps.usd.edu/coglab/schieber/psyc423/pdf/IowaTrailMaking.pdf Portuguese Cavaco, S., Goncalves, A., Pinto, C., Almeida, E., Gomes, F., Moreira, I., ...Teixeira-Pinto, A. (2013). Trail Making Test: Regression-based norms for the Portuguese population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(2), 189-198. http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acs115
Cavaco, S., Gonçalves, A., Pinto, C., Almeida, E., Gomes, F., Moreira, I., ... & Teixeira-Pinto, A. (2013). Semantic fluency and phonemic fluency: regression- based norms for the Portuguese population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(3), 262-271. Contact: [email protected]
- LABERINTOS PORTEUS (Porteus, 1955). 77 Spain, Portugal and Italy Porteu, S.D. (2006). Labyrinths Porteus. Madrid: Tea Ediciones
- WAIS IV (Digits, Vocabulary and Matrices) (Wechsler, 2012). Spanish WAIS-IV, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Adults-IV. Pearson http://www.pearsonclinical.es/producto/68/wais-iv-escala-de-inteligencia-de- wechsler-para-adultos-iv#Autores Portuguese Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (Wechsler, 2008; Portuguese version by CEGOC). Italian Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (Wechsler, 2008; Italian version by Giuntios). https://www.giuntios.it/catalogo/test/wais-iv-wechsler-adult-intelligence-scale- fourth-edition
- Continuos Performance Test (CPT) (Rosvold, Mirsky, Sarason, Bransome & Beck, 1956). A computerized version was used: http://pebl.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PEBL_Continuous_Performance_Test.
B) Paper and pencil tests. - Inventory of Prefontal Symptoms (ISP) (Ruiz-Sánchez de León et al., 2012).
Spanish version (free) ISP and ISP-20 Inventory of Prefrontal Symptoms https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290132138_ISP_e_ISP- 20_Prefrontal_Symptoms_Inventory. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3410.4401/1
- Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire (SA-45) (Davison, et al., 1997).
Spanish 78 González de Rivera, J.L. & De las Cuevas, C. (1988). Spanish version of questionnaire SCL-90-R. Tenerife: Universidad de la Laguna (polycopied). Sandín, B., Valiente, R.M., Chorot, P., Sanded, M. A., and Lostao, L. (2008). SA- 45: abbreviated form of SCL-90. Psicothema, 20, 290-296. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28224827_SA- 45_forma_abreviada_del_SCL-90 Portuguese Canavarro, M. C. (2007). Inventário de Sintomas Psicopatológicos: Uma revisão crítica dos estudos realizados em Portugal. In M. Simões, C. Machado, M. Gonçalves, & L. Almeida (Eds.), Avaliação psicológica: Instrumentos validados para a população Portuguesa (vol. III, pp. 305-331). Coimbra: Quarteto Editora.mContact: [email protected] Italian Sarno, I., Preti, E., Prunas, A., & Madeddu, F. (2011). SCL-90-R Symptom Checklist-90-R Italian Adattamento. Florence: Giunti, Organizzazioni Speciali.
- Levenson´s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRPS) (Levensohn, Kiehl and Fitzpatrick, 1995). Spanish Arregui Sáez, J. L. (2012) Cognitive and motivational variables related to the level of risk and behaviour of juvenile and adult delinquents. La Laguna: ULL Publications Service. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/9751 Portuguese
Barbosa, F., Gonçalves, S., Almeida, P. R., Ferreira-Santos, F., & Marques- Teixeira, J. (2014). The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRPS): Translation and adaptation to European Portuguese (LabReport No. 7). Porto: Laboratory of Neuropsychophysiology (University of Porto). http://www.fpce.up.pt/labpsi/data_files/09labreports/LabReport_7.pdf Contact: [email protected]
79 - Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960). Spanish Ferrando, P. J., and Chico, E. (2000). Adaptation and psychometric analysis of the social desirability scale of Marlowe and Crowne. Psicothema, 12, 383-389. http://www.psicothema.es/pdf/346.pdf Portuguese Pechorro, P., Vieira, R. X., Poiares, C., & Marôco, J. (2012). Contributions for the validation of a short version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Disability Scale with Portuguese teenagers. Archives of Medicine, 26(3), 103-108. Contact: [email protected] Italian Maino, E., & Aceti, G. (1997). Contributo all'adattamento italiano della Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 4(2), 81-93.
- The Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11) (Patton, Stanford and Barratt, 1995). Spanish Oquendo, M. A., Baca-García, E., Graver, R., Morales, M., Montalvan, V. and Mann, J. (2001). Spanish adaptation of the Barratt impulsiveness scale (BIS-11). European Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 147-155. http://bi.cibersam.es/busqueda-de-instrumentos/ficha?Id=128 Portuguese Pechorro P., Maroco J., Ray J.V., and Gonçalves R.A. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 among a Portuguese
sample of incarcerated juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2015, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1054386 Contact: [email protected] Italian http://www.impulsivity.org/measurement/bis11_Italian
- Questionnaire on Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward 80 (SCSR) (Torrubia, Ávila, Moltó and Caseras, 2001). Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J. & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837-862. Contact: [email protected]
- Arithmetic Calculus Test (PCA) (Artiles and Jimenez, 2011). Artiles, C. and Jiménez, J. E. (2011). PCA: Arithmetic Calculation Test. In Normativización de instrumentos para la detección e identificación de las necesidades educativas del alumnado con trastorno por déficit de atención con o sin hiperactividad (TDAH) o alumnado con dificultades específicos de aprendizaje (DEA) (pp. 13-26). Las Palmas, Gran Canaria: Dirección General de Ordenación e Innovación Educativa del Gobierno de Canarias. http://redined.mecd.gob.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11162/99842/P_NormInstrum et_TDAH_DEA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- PISA2009 Reading Comprehension Test (Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, 2010). Spanish http://recursostic.educacion.es/inee/pisa/lectora/lectorapisa/textos_continuos/lect ora_texcontinuo_er/018lectorapisa_como_brushing_los_dientes_er.pdf Portuguese
http://download.inep.gov.br/acoes_internacionais/pisa/resultados/2009/brasil_rel atorio_nacional_PISA_2009.pdf
81
Description of intelectual outputs
Intellectual output 2 - Product Title Evaluation study from the neuropsychological point of view of the NEAE-linked functions of adult inmate students in the four reference penitentiaries, and examine it in comparison with normalized peers. 82 - Description of the product Evaluation from the neuropsychological point of view of the functions linked to the NEAE of the adult inmate in the four reference penitentiary centres, and to examine it in comparison with normalized equals in four Adult Education Centres in the localities where the penitentiary centres are installed.
Intellectual output 3 - Product Title Evaluation Report from the neuropsychological point of view of the executive functions of students who are in prison in comparison with peers who have gone through internment of minors and with normalized peers. - Description of the product To evaluate from the neuropsychological point of view the executive functions of adults who are in prison in comparison with peers who have gone through internment of minors and with normalized peers.