Comisión de Estatutos - Calypsos · 2019. 1. 21. · (Stewart, Wilton y Sapers, 2016) ¡¡IT...
Transcript of Comisión de Estatutos - Calypsos · 2019. 1. 21. · (Stewart, Wilton y Sapers, 2016) ¡¡IT...
-
CALYPSOS Report
Intellectual Output 1, 2 &3
OCTOBER, 30TH 2018
Juan García García. Universidad de Almería (Spain)
Ana María Martín Rodríguez. Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Rui João Abrunhosa Gonçalves. Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Silvia Cataldi. Universitá La Sapienza di Roma (Italy)
Speaker: María Dolores Roldán Tapia.
Universidad de Almería
-
Support to social inclusion, to the specific needs
and improvement of basic skills for inmates in
Europe (2016-1-ES01-KA204-025656)
Apoyo a la inclusión social, a las necesidades específicas y la
mejora de competencias básicas para personas reclusas en
Europa
-
Academic Performances
In absence of intervention, the institutionalization may produce functional and academic decline (Umbach, Raine y Leonard, 2017).
Then, the inmates could develop a disexecutive syndrome, becoming people with Specific Educational Support Needs (SESN).
Deficit in Executive Functions
-
The executive
function is related
with academic
performances in
people with a regular
life (Normal subject).
Reading and
Writing (Blair y Razza, 2007).
Maths (Friso-van den Bos, van
der Ven,
Kroesbergen y van
Luit, 2013). Sciences (Nayfeld, Fuccillo y
Greenfield, 2013).
THE ORIGIN:
-
WHAT ARE THE EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS ?
WHY ARE THEY USEFUL?
-
6
The ability to build up or
create mental ideas
about the relationship
between oneself and the
others. And the possibility
to use these ideas with
the enough flexibility to
guide the social behavior.
(Adolphs, 2001).
SOCIAL COGNITION
-
7
A- EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
¿HOW TO DO ..?
B- Functions related with emotional
control
¿WHAT TO DO …?
C- Functions related with control and
regulation of behavior
¿WHEN TO DO….?
A+B+C= Socialization process
ORBITAL
-
• Selective Attention
• Planning
• Management
• Reasoning
• Mental Shifting
• Organization
• Problems resolution
• Spontaneus Behavior
• Inhibition
• Self-regulation
A set of cognitive skills that are responsible for the planning, initiation, sequencing, and monitoring of complex goal-directed behavior. (Royall et al., 2002).
-
Planning
Cognitive flexibility
Control of Interference
Working memory
Executive functions and academic achievement (Rapoport, Rubinsten y Katzir, 2016).
-
Inhibition
Taking decisions
Maths
(Stewart, Wilton y Sapers, 2016)
¡¡IT
TRANSLATES
TO
-
PRODUCTOS
-
EF-ASB
Morgan y Lilienfeld (2000)
Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan, &
Shum (2011)
Gil-Fenoy, García-García,
Carmona-Samper, y
Ortega-Campos (2018) ME
TA
-AN
ÁL
ISIS
Meta-analysis about the relationship between Executive
Functions (FE) and offending behavior
Meta-analysis about the relationship between Executive
Functions (FE) and offending behavior
-
RESULTS
Sample
50 papers 3.210 participant
EG: 1.714
CG: 1.496 NP: 842
Prisioner: 654
3.093 Males
117 Females
-
RESULTS
58 studies CG Prisioners (28)- No
Prisioners(30)
Two samples
Sample
50 papers 3.210 participant
EG: 1.714
CG: 1.496 NP: 842
Prisioner: 654
-
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
Baker y Ireland (2007) PONDERADO 0,910 0,229 0,052 0,461 1,359 3,975 0,000 Puro
Barbosa & Monteiro (2008) PONDERADO 1,038 0,080 0,006 0,881 1,195 12,949 0,000 Puro
Barkataki et al. (2005) PONDERADO 0,187 0,093 0,009 0,004 0,370 1,999 0,046 Puro
Bergeron & Valliant (2001) PONDERADO 0,675 0,191 0,037 0,300 1,050 3,529 0,000 Puro
Bergvall, Nilsson, & Hansen (2003) PONDERADO 0,521 0,145 0,021 0,236 0,806 3,579 0,000 Puro
Bergvall et al. (2001) PONDERADO 0,637 0,154 0,024 0,334 0,939 4,124 0,000 Puro
Bihrle (1995) PONDERADO 0,224 0,106 0,011 0,016 0,431 2,116 0,034 Puro
Combalbert et al. (2017) PONDERADO 0,650 0,047 0,002 0,558 0,742 13,828 0,000 Puro
Crump (2005) PONDERADO 0,716 0,118 0,014 0,485 0,946 6,090 0,000 Puro
Devonshire, Howard, & Sellars (1988) * PONDERADO 2,371 0,307 0,094 1,769 2,973 7,717 0,000 Puro
Devonshire, Howard, & Sellars (1988) PONDERADO 1,434 0,269 0,072 0,906 1,961 5,325 0,000 Puro
Dolan (2012) PONDERADO 0,087 0,104 0,011 -0,116 0,291 0,841 0,400 Puro
Dolan and Anderson (2002) PONDERADO 0,739 0,110 0,012 0,524 0,955 6,736 0,000 Puro
Dolan & Park (2002) PONDERADO 0,672 0,106 0,011 0,465 0,880 6,350 0,000 Puro
Enticott et al. (2007) PONDERADO 0,238 0,271 0,074 -0,294 0,770 0,877 0,380 Puro
Greenfield and Valliant (2007) * PONDERADO 0,060 0,320 0,103 -0,568 0,688 0,187 0,851 Puro
Greenfield and Valliant (2007) PONDERADO 0,390 0,319 0,102 -0,236 1,016 1,222 0,222 Puro
Herrero, Escorial, and Colom (2010) PONDERADO 0,285 0,158 0,025 -0,024 0,595 1,808 0,071 Puro
Hoaken, Allaby, and Earle (2007) * PONDERADO 0,840 0,330 0,109 0,193 1,487 2,546 0,011 Puro
Hoaken, Allaby, and Earle (2007) PONDERADO 1,100 0,339 0,115 0,435 1,765 3,242 0,001 Puro
Ishikawa et al. (2001) PONDERADO 0,626 0,188 0,035 0,258 0,993 3,332 0,001 Puro
Pera-Guardiola et al. (2016) PONDERADO 0,732 0,117 0,014 0,503 0,960 6,272 0,000 Puro
Porteus (1942) PONDERADO 1,880 0,170 0,029 1,547 2,213 11,071 0,000 Puro
Porteus (1945) * PONDERADO 0,500 0,268 0,072 -0,025 1,025 1,865 0,062 Puro
Porteus (1945) PONDERADO 1,140 0,185 0,034 0,777 1,503 6,153 0,000 Puro
Stanford et al. (2007) PONDERADO 0,288 0,151 0,023 -0,007 0,583 1,913 0,056 Puro
Suchy et al. (2009) * PONDERADO 0,720 0,326 0,106 0,080 1,360 2,206 0,027 Puro
Suchy et al. (2009) PONDERADO 0,940 0,333 0,111 0,287 1,593 2,821 0,005 Puro
Vollm et al. (2004) PONDERADO 0,417 0,360 0,130 -0,288 1,123 1,159 0,246 Puro
Vollm et al. (2010) PONDERADO 0,007 0,163 0,027 -0,314 0,327 0,040 0,968 Puro
0,679 0,077 0,006 0,529 0,829 8,871 0,000
-2,50 -1,25 0,00 1,25 2,50
Favours A Favours B
EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATION (K=30)
Effect Size Mean
d= 0,679
-
MODERADOR VARIABLES ANALYSIS (K=30)
Qb df p
Test Group 13,56 4 0,009
Publicado 1,729 1 0,189
Tipo Muestra 5,423 3 0,143
Calidad estudio 1,31 3 0,727
IC 95%
b Lower limit Upper limit t p R2
Edad media total 0,019 -0,004 0,042 1,66 0,104 0,04
Edad media GE 0,013 -0,012 0,038 1,08 0,289 0
CI medio total -0,024 -0,051 0,004 -1,76 0,088 0,09
CI medio GE -0,021 -0,044 0,003 -1,82 0,078 0,1
Año publicación -0,0123 -0,0209 -0,0036 -2,9 0,007 0,29
Cate
gory
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Attention: d= 0.397
Cognitive Flexibly.: d=0.769
Working Memory: d= 0,524
Planning: d= 0,403
Dis-executive S.: d=0,859
Q(29) =232,12, p
-
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
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
EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATION (K=28)
Effect Size Mean
d= 0,376
-
Participants: 415 (301 inmates and 114 control subjects)
Sexo: 85 % males (63 females)
Criminal records in juvenile justice: 19%
Age: M = 37,7 DT = 12,7 P25-50-75 = 26-35-47
Countries: Spain 62%(38%TF-24%AL)
Portugal and Italy (19% c/u)
Centers of prisions: 6
PRODUCTOS 2 y 3
-
Group 1 (RG). Inmates in The Center of Education for
Adult Students (CEPAS). No criminal records in juvenile
justice. No previous psychopatologies.
Grupo 2 (ANG). Normal Adult population. Education
normalized. No criminal records. No previous
psychopatologies.
Grupo 3 (RG-JJ). Inmates with previous criminal
records. No previous psychopatologies.
PRODUCTOS 2 y 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE:
-
INDIVIDUAL SESSIONS
WAIS (Dígitos) Working memory 5´
STROOP Interference 5´
TOL Planning 15´
WAIS (Vocabulary) Premorbid IQ
15´
PERFORMACE TEST (CPT)* Go-No go performance 15´
TMT-A y B Divided attention and Cognitive
Flexibility 5´
PORTEUS Planning and Spatial memory
15´
COWAT-FAS Cognitive shifting and Fluency 5´
PRODUCTOS 2 y 3 PROTOCOLO DE EVALUACIÓN
INSTRUMENTS:
-
PRODUCTOS 2 y 3 PROTOCOLO DE EVALUACIÓN
GROUPAL SESSIONS
BARRAT IMPULSIVITY SCALE (BIS-11) Impulsivity 5’
LEVENSON SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY
SCALE (LSRP)
Psychophaty 5’
SA45 BSI Clinical symptoms 5’
INVENTARIO DE SINDROME PREFRONTAL
(ISP) Prefrontal symptoms
questionnaire
15’
TEST DE LECTURA Reading 10’
TEST DE CÁLCULO
Arithmetic and Maths 15’
SPSQR Sensibility to reward and
punishment
10’
TEST DE DESEABILIDAD SOCIAL Social Deseability 10’
-
23
RESULTS:
Mean scores and 95%CI of vocabulary and
matrixes in the groups of comparison and
imprisonment
Control group has better
educational attainmentand
reasoning that prisoners,
but higher variability also.
Particularly, reasoning has
quite low level of
performance in prisoners.
A) PREMORBID LEVEL AND REASONING
-
B) Attentional DOMAIN
24
STROOP TEST
TRAIL MAKING TEST
CONTINOUS
PERFORMANCE TEST
Mean scores and 95%CI of time in the performance of TMT-B.
Mean scores and 95% CI of perseverative mistakes in the performance of TMT-B
In the attentional domain including the Stroop test scores
(word, color, and interference), the TMT, and the TR and
CPT errors, a worse execution is registered by the group
of prisoners in the TMTB execution time (see Figure 2) and
in the number of non-perseverative errors (see Figure 3).
-
c) Flexibility
Figure.4. Average and 95%CI scores of FAS and Animal task
In the area of cognitive
flexibility, there are no
statistically significant
differences between the two
groups, although there is a
statistically significant decrease
in the group of prisoners in
verbal fluency in both semantic
and phonetic tasks .
-
26
Figure 5. Average scores and 95%CI
of the time in the execution of the TOL
Figure 6. Mean scores and 95%CI of
the number of movements in TOL
In the domain of Planning, the
prisoners perform the task of the
mazes with worse quality (see
Figure 4), in addition to needing
more time and movements in the
task of planning of the Tower of
London (see Figures 5 and 6). In
addition, the Porteus Q score
correlates (average magnitude
of 0.3) with the ISP execution
scales.
Figure 4. Mean scores and 95%CI of the
Porteus Maze Q score.
d) Planning
-
27
In the working memory, statistically
significant differences in working
memory capacity are observed,
being lower on the part of those
imprisoned, although it is within the
levels of normality (see Figure 8).
There are no statistically
significant differences in memory
spam.
Figure 8. Mean scores and 95%CI on the Digit test backward
E) Working memory
-
28
In relation to the application of an indirect measure of frontal
lobe function (Prefrontal Symptom Inventory) statistically
significant differences are found between the comparison group,
the general prisoner group and the juvenile justice background
group, in the subscales of execution (motivational, executive
control and attentional problems).
and no statistically significant differences are found in the
other subscales (social and emotional behavior problems).
However, these subscales correlate in relevant magnitudes with
the scale of social desirability, especially in the comparison
sample, which makes us take these results with caution.
e) Prefrontal Syndrome and Impulsivity
-
29
f) Academic achievement and executive functions
Calculation
R2=.29
Calculation
R2=.29
Matrix Matrix
Q of Porteus Q of
Porteus Backwards
Digits
Backwards
Digits
Reading
R2=.15
Reading
R2=.15
Perseverative errors of
TMT-B
Stroop's PC´
-
30
g) Psycho-social and psychopathological profile
• Differences groups in primary and total psychopathy (higher in Juvenile Justice)
• Quite high in prisoners and in the comparison group (higher in the inmate group)
• Higher score in the control group vs. inmates
• Psychoticism (higher prisoners)
• Hostility (higher- antecedents in Juvenile Justice )
Symptoms Symptoms Impulsivity Impulsivity
Psychopathy Psychopathy Sensitivity to Punishment
and Reward
Sensitivity to Punishment
and Reward
-
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
1.- A "low" general profile of executive functions is observed (mainly
planning and reasoning) with respect to the comparison group, without having
a clinical nature. This could indicate a lower development of the dorsolateral
zone of the prefrontal area, possibly because they are persons developed in
cognitively impoverished environments.
2.- In general terms, there is a deficit in the visuomotor processing speed
(including reading speed) but the execution is not compromised, that is, they
invest more time but give the correct answer.
3.- The tests related to reasoning indicate a rather low level of reasoning on
the part of prisoners, which makes learning processes difficult -it would be
opportune to train with verbal and non-verbal material in this type of task, due
to the repercussions it has on academic life (e.g., Mathematics, Language, etc.).-
-
32
4.- Working memory test’s scores are lower than the comparison group,
although within normal levels, while the span is correct. This implies that the
ability to memorize data in the short term is not bad, but the handling of them to
get a solution is deficient with respect to the comparison group, this is important
because of the academic repercussions it could entail.
5.- The premorbid level is also low, but very close to the comparison group,
both below the normalized mean, which indicates that the differences found in
other areas cannot be attributed to these scores.
6.- A low fluency in vocabulary and access to lexicon is observed, possibly
derived both from the cultural level and from the speed problems mentioned
above (which are also related to the development of white matter at an early
age).
-
33
7.- When the results of prisoners with juvenile records are included in the analysis,
we observe some interesting results. For example:
a) inmates with juvenile records have a processing speed similar to that of the
comparison group, carry out planning tasks better and have greater verbal
fluency.
b) It is also important to highlight the working memory tasks, both in capacity
and in spam, coming very close to the execution of the comparison group
and with acceptable results.
This effect on prisoners with Juvenile Justice records could be associated with a
training effect at earlier ages, although it may not be generalizable, finding a high
variability, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions.
-
34
8.-. A relevant fact is the possible anosognosy that all prisoners (with
and without juvenile antecedents) present with respect to frontal
symptomatology (measured by a self-assessment questionnaire).
That is to say, prisoners are not aware of presenting deficit or
dysfunction, whether motivational, attentional or executive control.
In addition, this score correlates with the number of errors in
planning tasks. These results are very relevant to the intervention
because there is no learning without motivation and without
awareness of deficit.
-
35
9.- With respect to the relationship with academic performance, the data
indicate that reading performance is related to the ability to avoid
interference and to divide attention without making mistakes, i.e. with
attentional control processes. This is relevant since the group of prisoners
obtains a more deficient execution than the comparison group in these tasks, so
it would be appropriate to include training programs for attentional control
in this population.
10.- In the same line, and with respect to performance in mathematics, it is
observed that the tasks that best predict execution in this area are those
related to planning, working memory and reasoning. It implies the need to
manipulate information and to order in a logical way the sequence of actions
that entails the realization or learning of mathematics. As in the previous point,
it is desirable to include the training of these pre-requisite skills: reasoning,
working memory, and planning in programs and curricular adaptations to
these prison populations.
-
36
12. The psychosocial profile related to imprisoned persons coincides with
that expected. In addition, the fact that there is practically no
prevalence of informed clinical symptoms with respect to the
comparison group gives us greater relevance to the results found in
executive functions.
13. Among the limitations of the study is the heterogeneity of the sample
of both the group of prisoners and the subgroup with antecedents, as
well as in the comparison groups. Future studies, evaluations or
interventions should take these differences into account.
-
RECOMENDATIONS
1. Work on anosognosy of deficits. Emphasize the importance of working on these skills.
2. Work by mean Problems Based Learning (PBL). In this way it will be
possible to do applied training, taking into account that the levels of
flexibility and memory are adequate.
3. Work with practical assumptions (Practical cases), increasing the
capacity of reasoning and expanding the working memory.
4. Training by exercises that improve the speed of processing (with high
motivation) and logical problems.
5. To begin this type of measures with the younger people.
-
Contact Report
Intellectual Output 1, 2 &3
Email. [email protected] Juan García García University of Almería.
Email: [email protected] Ana María Martín Rodríguez. University
of La Laguna (Spain)
.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]