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. jgarciag@ual.es Juan García García University of Almería.

Email: ammartin@ull.edu.es Ana María Martín Rodríguez. University

of La Laguna (Spain)

.

mailto:jgarciag@ual.esmailto:ammartin@ull.edu.es