Book contents
- Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Copyright page
- About the Cover Page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword by the Rt Hon Lord Bradley
- Terminology Used in the Book
- Section 1 An Overview: Definitions, Epidemiology and Policy Issues
- Section 2 Assessment and Therapeutic Approach
- Chapter 11 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 12 Autism Spectrum Disorder: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 13 Intellectual Disability: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 14 Risk Assessments in People with Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Chapter 15 Assessment and Treatment of Young Offenders
- Section 3 Criminal Justice Pathways and Legal Issues
- Index
- References
Chapter 13 - Intellectual Disability: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
from Section 2 - Assessment and Therapeutic Approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 May 2023
Book contents
- Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Copyright page
- About the Cover Page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword by the Rt Hon Lord Bradley
- Terminology Used in the Book
- Section 1 An Overview: Definitions, Epidemiology and Policy Issues
- Section 2 Assessment and Therapeutic Approach
- Chapter 11 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 12 Autism Spectrum Disorder: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 13 Intellectual Disability: Assessment and Therapeutic Approaches within Forensic Settings
- Chapter 14 Risk Assessments in People with Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Chapter 15 Assessment and Treatment of Young Offenders
- Section 3 Criminal Justice Pathways and Legal Issues
- Index
- References
Summary
The prevalence of intellectual disability (ID) in offender services is higher than in the general population. Identifying offenders with ID in the criminal justice system can be a challenge. It is essential to recognise offenders who may have ID and assess them. Screening offenders for ID is potentially less time consuming and effective in identifying those who would benefit from full assessment. Screening tools such as the LDSQ and HASI have been developed in community and in forensic settings, which have good sensitivity and specificity. Screening for adaptive functioning skills is important when considering the presence of ID that may be difficult to elucidate in a forensic setting. The treatment of offenders with ID requires commitment from staff to support people through levels of security. Adapting treatment strategies is key to treating people. Treatment programmes for offences such as sex offences, fire setting and violence can be adapted successfully to work with people with cognitive impairments. Alternatives to custodial and hospital care are developing where people are diverted from prison to hospital or to appropriate community support.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental DisordersA Clinician's Guide, pp. 148 - 163Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Wakeling, H, Ramsay, L. Learning disability and challenges in male prisons: programme screening evaluation. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 2020; 11(1): 49–59.Google Scholar
Murphy, GH, Gardner, J, Freeman, MJ. Screening prisoners for intellectual disabilities in three English prisons. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2017; 30(1): 198–204.Google Scholar
Fazel, S, Xenitidis, K, Powell, J. The prevalence of intellectual disabilities among 12,000 prisoners: a systematic review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2008; 31(4): 369–73.Google Scholar
Maulik, PK, Mascarenhas, MN, Mathers, CD, Dua, T, Saxena, S. Prevalence of intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of population-based studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2011; 32(2): 419–36.Google Scholar
Søndenaa, E, Rasmussen, K, Palmstierna, T, Nøttestad, J. The prevalence and nature of intellectual disability in Norwegian prisons. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2008; 52(12): 1129–37.Google Scholar
Asscher, JJ, van der Put, CE, Stams, GJ. Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012; 33(6): 1905–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association, 2013.Google Scholar
Schalock, RL, Borthwick-Duffy, SA, Bradley, VJ, Buntinx, WHE, Coulter, DL, Craig, EM, et al. Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2010.Google Scholar
Hellenbach, M, Karatzias, T, Brown, M. Intellectual disabilities among prisoners: prevalence and mental and physical health comorbidities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2017; 30(2): 230–41.Google Scholar
British Psychological Society. Learning disability: definitions and contexts. Available at: www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/defining-learning-disability.Google Scholar
Kaal, HL, Nijman, HL, Moonen, XM. Identifying offenders with an intellectual disability in detention in the Netherlands. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 2015. June 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, DE. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS IV): return of the gold standard. Applied Neuropsychology 2009; 16(1): 85–7.Google Scholar
Sparrow, SS, Cicchetti, DV. Diagnostic uses of the Vineland adaptive behavior scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1985; 10(2): 215–25.Google Scholar
Ammons, RB, Ammons, CH. The Quick Test (QT): provisional manual. Psychological Reports 1962; 11(1): 111–61.Google Scholar
Mason, J, Murphy, G. People with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: developing an assessment tool for measuring prevalence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2002; 41(3): 315–20.Google Scholar
Tyrer, F, McGrother, CW, Thorp, CF, Taub, NA, Bhaumik, S, Cicchetti, DV. The Leicestershire Intellectual Disability Tool: a simple measure to identify moderate to profound intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2008; 21(3): 268–76.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K, Michie, A, Murray, A, Hales, C. Screening for offenders with an intellectual disability: the validity of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012; 33(3): 791–5.Google Scholar
Ali, A, Ghosh, S, Strydom, A, Hassiotis, A. Prisoners with intellectual disabilities and detention status. Findings from a UK cross sectional study of prisons. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2016; 53–54: 189–97.Google Scholar
Hayes, SC. Early intervention or early incarceration? Using a screening test for intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2002; 15(2): 120–8.Google Scholar
Ford, G, Andrews, R, Booth, A, Dibdin, J, Hardingham, S, Kelly, TP. Screening for learning disability in an adolescent forensic population. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 2008; 19(3): 371–81.Google Scholar
Homack, SR, Reynolds, CR. Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.Google Scholar
McCrimmon, AW, Smith, AD. Review of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2011; 31(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912467756.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K, Paxton, D. Promoting access to services: the development of a new screening tool. Learning Disability Practice 2006; 9(6): 17–21.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K, Sharples, P, Murray, AL. Validating the learning disability screening questionnaire against the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 2015; 53(4): 301–7.Google Scholar
Paxton, D, McKenzie, K, Murray, G. Putting screening tools to the test. Learning Disability Practice 2008; 11(8): 14–18.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K, Michie, A, Murray, A, Hales, C. Screening for offenders with an intellectual disability: the validity of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012; 33(3): 791–5.Google Scholar
Murray, AL, McKenzie, K. The accuracy of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ) in classifying severity of impairment: a brief report. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 2014; 39(4): 370–4.Google Scholar
Bjørgen, TG, Gimse, R, Søndenaa, E. Selective samples and the accuracy of screening for intellectual disabilities: learning disability screening questionnaire. Open Journal of Social Sciences 2016; 4(05): 109.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K, Paxton, D, Murray, G, Milanesi, P, Murray, AL. The evaluation of a screening tool for children with an intellectual disability: the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012; 33(4): 1068–75.Google Scholar
McBrien, J. The intellectually disabled offender: methodological problems in identification. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2003; 16(2): 95–105.Google Scholar
Traub, GS, Spruill, J. Correlations between the Quick Test and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Psychological Reports 1982; 51(1): 309–10.Google Scholar
Hassiotis, A, Gazizova, D, Akinlonu, L, Bebbington, P, Meltzer, H, Strydom, A. Psychiatric morbidity in prisoners with intellectual disabilities: analysis of prison survey data for England and Wales. British Journal of Psychiatry 2011; 199(2): 156–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gresham, FM, Elliott, SN. The relationship between adaptive behavior and social skills: issues in definition and assessment. Journal of Special Education 1987; 21(1): 167–81.Google Scholar
Soenen, S, Van Berckelaer-Onnes, I, Scholte, E. Patterns of intellectual, adaptive and behavioral functioning in individuals with mild mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2009; 30(3): 433–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, GE, Hocken, K, Auty, JM. The reliability and validity of the Adaptive Functioning Assessment Tool in UK custodial settings. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 2020; 24(1): 35–49.Google Scholar
Uzieblo, K, Winter, J, Vanderfaeillie, J, Rossi, G, Magez, W. Intelligent diagnosing of intellectual disabilities in offenders: food for thought. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2012; 30(1): 28–48.Google Scholar
Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1997; 38(5): 581–6.Google Scholar
Smith, L. Improving the assessment of intellectual disability (ID) within the UK prison service (who define ID using an IQ below 80). Nottingham Trent University, 2016. Available at: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/28031/1/LORRAINE.SMITH-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Harrison, P, Oakland, T. Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (ABAS-II). The Psychological Corporation, 2003.Google Scholar
Higgins, L. Secure unit: positive behavioural support and restraint reduction in a unit for offenders with an intellectual disability and/or autism: practice paper. International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support 2021; 11(1): 42–54.Google Scholar
Carlson, JR, Thomas, G. Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2006; 43(3): 19–34.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D, Bagshaw, R, Stubbings, D, Watt, A. Restrictive practices in adult secure mental health services: a scoping review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2021; 13: 1–21.Google Scholar
Büsselmann, M, Titze, L, Lutz, M, Dudeck, M, Streb, J. Measuring the quality of life in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Frontiers in Psychology 2021; 12: 701231.Google Scholar
Mooney, JL, Daffern, M. The Offence Analogue and Offence Reduction Behaviour Rating Guide as a supplement to violence risk assessment in incarcerated offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2013; 12(4): 255–64.Google Scholar
Cavney, J, Friedman, SH. Culture, mental illness, and prison: a New Zealand perspective. In Mills, A, Kendall, K, eds., Mental Health in Prisons. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018: 211–34.Google Scholar
Thomas, SD, Slade, M, Mccrone, P, Harty, MA, Parrott, J, Thornicroft, G, Leese, M. The reliability and validity of the forensic Camberwell Assessment of Need (CANFOR): a needs assessment for forensic mental health service users. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 2008; 17(2): 111–20.Google Scholar
Xenitidis, K, Thornicroft, G, Leese, M, Slade, M, Fotiadou, M, Philp, H, et al. Reliability and validity of the CANDID: a needs assessment instrument for adults with learning disabilities and mental health problems. British Journal of Psychiatry 2000; 176(5): 473–8.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J, Wormith, SJ. Level of Service–Case Management Inventory: LS/CMI. Multi-Health Systems, 2000.Google Scholar
Davoren, M, Hennessy, S, Conway, C, Marrinan, S, Gill, P, Kennedy, HG. Recovery and concordance in a secure forensic psychiatry hospital: the self rated DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales. BMC Psychiatry 2015; 15(1): 1–2.Google Scholar
Dench, C. A model for training staff in positive behaviour support. Tizard Learning Disability Review 2005; 10(2): 24–30.Google Scholar
Bonta, J, Andrews, DA. Risk–need–responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation 2007; 6(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Ward, T, Brown, M. The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime and Law 2004; 10(3): 243–57.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J, Dafern, M. The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression: an instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 2006; 24(6): 799–813.Google Scholar
Barry-Walsh, J, Daffern, M, Duncan, S, Ogloff, J. The prediction of imminent aggression in patients with mental illness and/or intellectual disability using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression instrument. Australasian Psychiatry 2009; 17(6): 493–6.Google Scholar
Schalast, N, Redies, M, Collins, M, Stacey, J, Howells, K. EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2008; 18(1): 49–58.Google Scholar
Chester, V, Alexander, RT, Morgan, W. Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services. BJPsych Bulletin 2017; 41(6): 358–63.Google Scholar
Sugai, G, Horner, R. The evolution of discipline practices: school-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 2002; 24(1–2): 23–50.Google Scholar
Rizvi, SL, Ritschel, LA. Mastering the art of chain analysis in dialectical behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 2014; 21(3): 335–49.Google Scholar
Sheehan, R, Hassiotis, A, Walters, K, Osborn, D, Strydom, A, Horsfall, L. Mental illness, challenging behaviour, and psychotropic drug prescribing in people with intellectual disability: UK population based cohort study. BMJ 2015; 351.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Waterman, M, Ward, N. Driving aggression in forensic and non‐forensic populations: relationships to self‐reported levels of aggression, anger and impulsivity. British Journal of Psychology 2006; 97(3): 387–403.Google Scholar
Smith, RL, Rose, AJ, Schwartz‐Mette, RA. Relational and overt aggression in childhood and adolescence: clarifying mean‐level gender differences and associations with peer acceptance. Social Development 2010; 19(2): 243–69.Google Scholar
Baczała, D. Social skills of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews 2016; 5(2): 68–77.Google Scholar
Sakdalan, JA, Shaw, J, Collier, V. Staying in the here‐and‐now: a pilot study on the use of dialectical behaviour therapy group skills training for forensic clients with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2010; 54(6): 568–72.Google Scholar
Oxnam, P, Gardner, E. Treatment for emotional difficulties related to offending for people with an intellectual disability. In Lindsay, WR, Craig, LA, Griffiths, D, eds., The Wiley Handbook on What Works for Offenders with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Wiley, 2019: 357–72.Google Scholar
Taylor, JL, Novaco, RW, Brown, T. Reductions in aggression and violence following cognitive behavioural anger treatment for detained patients with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2016; 60(2): 126–33.Google Scholar
Wong, SC, Gordon, A. The Violence Reduction Programme: a treatment programme for violence-prone forensic clients. Psychology, Crime and Law 2013; 19(5–6): 461–75.Google Scholar
Elliott, DE, Bjelajac, P, Fallot, RD, Markoff, LS, Reed, BG. Trauma‐informed or trauma‐denied: principles and implementation of trauma‐informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology 2005; 33(4): 461–77.Google Scholar
Buel, SM. Domestic violence and the law: an impassioned exploration for family peace. Family Law Quarterly 1999; 33(3): 719–44.Google Scholar
Craig, LA. Controversies in assessing risk and deviancy in sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Psychology, Crime and Law 2010; 16(1–2): 75–101.Google Scholar
Williams, F, Mann, RE. The treatment of intellectually disabled sexual offenders in the National Offender Management Service: the Adapted Sex Offender Treatment programmes. In Craig, LA, Lindsay, WR, Browne, KD, eds., Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities: A Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, 2010: 293–315.Google Scholar
Gooren, LJ. Ethical and medical considerations of androgen deprivation treatment of sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2011; 96(12): 3628–37.Google Scholar
Harrison, K, Rainey, B, eds. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Legal and Ethical Aspects of Sex Offender Treatment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.Google Scholar
Daffern, M. Anti-libidinal medication use in people with intellectual disability who sexually offend. Available at: www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/201912/Anti-libidinal%20medication%20use%20in%20people%20with%20intellectual%20disability%20271119.pdf.Google Scholar
Holst, S, Lystrup, D, Taylor, JL. Firesetters with intellectual disabilities in Denmark. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 2019; 10(4): 102–18.Google Scholar
Alexander, RT, Chester, V, Green, FN, Gunaratna, I, Hoare, S. Arson or fire setting in offenders with intellectual disability: clinical characteristics, forensic histories, and treatment outcomes. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 2015; 40(2): 189–97.Google Scholar
Marshall-Tate, K, Chaplin, E, McCarthy, J, Grealish, A. A literature review about the prevalence and identification of people with an intellectual disability within court liaison and diversion services. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 2020; 11(3): 159–69.Google Scholar
Devapriam, J, Alexander, RT. Tiered model of learning disability forensic service provision. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 2012; 3(4): 175–85.Google Scholar
Taylor, JL, McKinnon, I, Thorpe, I, Gillmer, BT. The impact of transforming care on the care and safety of patients with intellectual disabilities and forensic needs. BJPsych Bulletin 2017; 41(4): 205–8.Google Scholar
Chester, V, Brown, AS, Devapriam, J, Axby, S, Hargreaves, C, Shankar, R. Discharging inpatients with intellectual disability from secure to community services: risk assessment and management considerations. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities 2017; 11: 98–109.Google Scholar