Literacy and Behaviour :The Prison Reading Survey

A dissertation submitted for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

M I C H A E L E D W A R D R I C E

Darwin College & Institute of CriminologyUniversity of Cambridge

F E B R U A R Y 1 9 9 9

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

Literacy and Behaviour: The Prison Reading SurveyA dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Michael Edward RiceDarwin College and Institute of Criminology

University of Cambridge

R E V I S E D 2 8 F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 0

Summary

There is a widespread belief that literacy levels among offenders are lower thanthose in the general population. A frequently-associated belief is that if theirreading problems were to be addressed, then offenders would abandonantisocial ways and pursue law-abiding careers. This study investigates the basisfor these beliefs by assessing the prevalence of reading problems in arandomised sample of 203 adult male offenders serving custodial sentences in arepresentative selection of seven prisons across the range of securityclassifications in England and Wales. It enquires into the diversity and likelycauses or exacerbating circumstances of offenders’ reading problems, using astructured interview with assessments of verbal and non-verbal ability, receptivesyntax, social cognition, and self-reported behaviours associated with childhoodattention-deficit and hyperactivity; and it considers the hypothesis thatdevelopmental dyslexia is a disproportionate cause of these problems. The studyalso reviews the development and pervasiveness of historical accounts of theassociation between literacy and behaviour.

Although functional literacy levels in the sample were found to be low in relationto the general population as a whole, they did not differ significantly from thegeneral population when social disadvantage was taken into account. Whilemany participants showed imperfect mastery of the alphabetic principle, thepattern of deficits in reading-related subskills suggested that, in a transactionalexplanatory model, greater importance should be attached to environmental thanto constitutional causes. In a probabilistic analysis, the prevalence ofdevelopmental dyslexia in the sample appeared to be within the range likely tooccur by chance. The study thus found no support for the hypotheses thatdevelopmental dyslexia might be a disproportionate cause of offenders’ readingproblems or that it might constitute an independent risk for criminal conviction.

1

I I I

The Prison Reading Survey and its Methods

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of the survey was to assess the levels of functional literacy in the adult male

prison population, to determine the extent of key sub-skill deficits in literacy, and to

explore hypotheses about the causes of those deficits.

Background

Two widely-held beliefs formed the background to the survey. The first belief was that

low literacy constitutes an additional impairment to the prospect of employment on

release and that the risk of recidivism might be reduced by educational interventions.

Research was needed to establish the extent of any problem before interventions could be

planned. A related belief was that low literacy in general, and specific reading disability in

particular, constitute significant risk factors for criminality, even after other risk factors

are taken into account. Research was needed to assess the support for these beliefs, which

have been more fully discussed in the introductory chapters.

Research Questions

The principal research questions were:

• What percentage of the sample is functionally illiterate (or low-literate)?

• What percentage of the sample has specific reading difficulties?

• What percentage of the sample had low impulse control or attentional problems in

childhood?

• What percentage of the sample has difficulties with social cognition involving

theory of mind?

2

• What percentage of the sample has tic disorders?

• What percentage of the sample experienced material, emotional, or educational

disadvantage in childhood?

• Which deficits are likely to be caused by neuropsychological abnormality, and

what patterns of comorbidity link them?

• Which deficits cannot plausibly be explained partly or wholly by

neuropsychological abnormalities, and what alternative explanations can be

proposed?

Hypotheses

A number of hypotheses and alternative hypotheses were prompted by previous studies

and beliefs held by members of dyslexia advocacy groups.

a) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners (two overlapping categories) differ from the

rest of the sample on measures of childhood socio-economic disadvantage; alternatively,

dyslexics have lower scores than the remainder.

b) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of educational attainment; alternatively, both low-literates and dyslexics have

lower levels of educational attainment than functionally literate members of the sample.

c) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of family structure in childhood; alternatively, both groups are less likely to

have grown up with both natural parents and fewer than three siblings.

d) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of personal independence in adulthood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely

to have attained independence and autonomy.

3

e) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of inter-generational socio-economic mobility; alternatively, dyslexics are more

likely to show evidence of inter-generational downward socio-economic mobility.

f) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of peer-group assimilation in childhood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have

been marginalised by their childhood peers.

g) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of adult experience in employment; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have been

unemployed when they were arrested, less likely to have had any job responsibility, and

to have been in their most recent job for a shorter time.

h) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a

measure of fluid intelligence; alternatively, dyslexics do better on a measure of fluid

intelligence.

i) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of impediment to successful learning at school; alternatively, dyslexics are more

likely to have had normal eyesight and hearing and better attendance records.

j) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of physical co-ordination; alternatively, dyslexics but not low-literates are less

likely to be able to swim, drive motor vehicles, or play games requiring good hand-eye co-

ordination.

k) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a

measure of alcoholism.

4

l) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of their use of writing; alternatively, both groups use writing less.

m) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

reports of the emotional climate of the childhood home or, alternatively, dyslexics have

more experience of depression and less experience of attachment.

n) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of parental discipline and control.

o) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of literacy in the home; alternatively, both groups are lower on these measures.

p) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of reading, writing, and spelling problems among first-degree relatives; alternatively,

dyslexics report more familial literacy problems.

q) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of childhood aggression; alternatively, dyslexics report more childhood

aggression.

r) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of family criminality; alternatively, dyslexics are less likely than non-dyslexics

to have convicted and imprisoned relations.

s) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of depression among family members; alternatively, dyslexics report more depression.

5

t) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of discontinuity in schooling; alternatively, low-literates but not dyslexics will

report greater discontinuity.

u) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of school response to their difficulties in learning to read; alternatively, dyslexics will

report a greater response insofar as it corresponds to higher parental socio-economic

status.

v) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on

measures of attachment to school; alternatively, both groups will show less attachment to

school.

w) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample with

respect to their age at first conviction; alternatively, low literates but not dyslexics will be

younger than their comparison group at first conviction.

x) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

of parental interest in their progress at school; alternatively, dyslexics report greater

parental interest in their schooling than the non-dyslexic comparison group.

y) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample on measures of family educational achievement; alternatively, dyslexics

but not low-literates will report less academic achievement than their parents or siblings.

z) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample on reports of incidents in which they might have sustained closed head

injury; alternatively, low-literates will report more such incidents.

6

aa) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample on a measure of school dropout; alternatively, both groups are more

likely to drop out of school than are their normal comparisons.

bb) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample on their perception of a causal link between failure at (or by) their

school and current imprisonment.

cc) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample on measures of reckless behaviour involving motor vehicles in

adulthood.

dd) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the

rest of the sample by ethnicity; alternatively, low-literates but not dyslexics are more

likely to belong to minority ethnic groups.

Design

Comparisons with previous research designs

The research was planned as a sample survey of the adult male prison population of

England and Wales. The design differs from most previous studies undertaken in England

and Wales, where either a single establishment (Schweiger, 1997; Snowling, Adams,

Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin, unpublished draft) or a small convenience sample of

establishments (Chester, 1995) has been studied. In its initial proposal to draw the sample

from two contrasting prison clusters, it follows a survey by a team of investigators

(ALBSU, 1994). However, it is relatively unusual in sampling a population of exclusively

adult male prisoners. Table 3.1 (below) is the first of two in which other studies of literacy

in offender populations are presented for comparison.

7

Table 3.1 Some Studies of Literacy in Offender Populations.

JURISDICTION AGE SEX STUDY

Australia Adults Males

FemalesBoth sexes Black, 1990; Black, Rouse, &

Wickert, 1990Juveniles Males

FemalesBoth sexes Cairney, Lowe, McKenzie, &

Petrakis, 1993All ages Males

FemalesBoth sexes

England & Adults Males Surrey Probation Service, 1995Wales Females

Both sexesJuveniles Males Jarratt, 1997; Schweiger, 1997;

Snowling, Adams, Bowyer-Crane,& Tobin

FemalesBoth sexes

All ages Males Chester, 1995FemalesBoth sexes ALBSU, 1994

Germany Adults Males Weinschenk & Foitzik, 1967Females Weinschenk & Sambach, 1970Both sexes

Juveniles Males Weinschenk & Dildey, 1970FemalesBoth sexes

All ages MalesFemalesBoth sexes

Sweden Adults MalesFemalesBoth sexes

Juveniles MalesFemalesBoth sexes

All ages Males Alm & Andersson, 1995Females Jensen, Lindgren, Wirsen-Meurling,

Ingvar, & Levander, in pressBoth sexes

8

/ . . . . .Table 3.1 (continued)

JURISDICTION AGE SEX STUDY

U S A Adults Males Dowling, 1991; Lundak, 1988;Rance-Roney, 1994; Read & Ruyter,1985; Weisel, 1987

Females Fink, 1991Both sexes Bell, Conard, Gazze, Greenwood,

Lutz, & Suppa, 1983; Haigler,Harlow, O'Connor, & Campbell,1994; Kender, Greenwood, &Conard, 1985

Juveniles Males Broder, Dunivant, Smith, & Sutton,1981; Dunivant, 1982; Dunivant,1984; Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986;Sternig-Babcock, 1987

FemalesBoth sexes Pasternack & Lyon, 1982; Bologna,

1986; Kolmetz, 1982; Pena, 1986;Zimmerman, Rich, Keilitz, &Broder, 1981

All ages MalesFemalesBoth sexes

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

It is impossible to compile a definitive list of studies in this field, as not every study is

listed in an academic database. The table includes only those reports that have proved

helpful in planning or discussing the methods of the present investigation.

Demographic variables

It is difficult to match epidemiological studies in the general and prison populations on

standard demographic and penal variables, as can be seen in Table 3.2 below.

9

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

N AGE SEX SES ETH EDN PEN

GENERAL POPULATION

Functional LiteracyKirsch (1993) 26,091 16-65+ m/f • • • n/aEkinsmyth (1994) 1,632 21 m/f • - • n/aWickert (1995) 1,496 18-55+ m/f • • • n/aBynner (1997) 1,714 37 m/f • • • n/aCarey (1997) 3,811 16-65 m/f • • • n/a

Learning deficienciesNo studies known

DyslexiaNo studies known

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

10

Literacy levels vary by age group and country (Carey, Low, & Hansbro, 1997) , with

marked variations at the lowest level of proficiency in the 16-25 age group between Great

Britain (17%), Sweden (4%), and the United States (24%). This finding alone invalidates

international comparisons between unadjusted literacy rates in offending populations.

In England and Wales, adult literacy levels have been found to vary according to the

demographic variables of age, sex, and socio-economic class (Carey et al., 1997) . The

particular importance of family background factors has been emphasised (Bynner &

Steedman, 1995) . The present investigation was designed to permit statistical control of

these and other extraneous variables. In this respect, it resembles the studies by Bell et al.

(1983), Haigler et al. (1994) , and Jensen, Lindgren, Wirsen-Meurling, Ingvar, & Levander

(in press) .

An age effect, showing marked improvements in literacy between the ages of fifteen and

twenty-six, has been found in a large cohort study (Rodgers, 1986) . However,

comparisons with studies by Ekinsmyth & Bynner (1994) and Bynner & Parsons (1997)

suggest that in reading attainment there might also be a cohort effect, for which various

explanations have been proposed, including the increase in television viewing and

changing attitudes and practices in the teaching of reading.

In addition to the reasons for describing the age-groups constituting the sample, there was

a reason for choosing adult rather than juvenile offenders as the subject of this study.

Previous studies of dyslexia, or specific reading retardation, or learning disabilities,

among juvenile offenders have failed to differentiate childhood-onset from adolescent-

onset offenders. In doing so, they aggregate deviant and normative offenders, although

the former group is more closely associated with life-course-persistent criminality

(Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996) . Because the present study was intended

to address causal hypotheses linking reading problems with deviance, it was limited to an

adult sample.

11

Because most of the prison population is male, this study looked only at male offenders.

That difference imposes caution when comparisons are made with the general population,

as sex ratios differ in various domains including levels of reading attainment. Differences

between boys and girls in ordinary reading attainment have been observed in primary

education (Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1988) , but they are unstable over

time (Carey et al., 1997) . Sex differences have also been reported in the prevalence of

specific reading retardation (Share, McGee, McKenzie, Williams, & Silva, 1987) , and

especially where there is a pattern of familial association (Wolff & Melngailis, 1994) .

Although a large-scale epidemiological study found no imbalance in the sex ratio for

reading disability (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990) , it found sex

differences in the functional organisation of the brain for phonological processing

(Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Pugh, Constable, Skudlarski, Fulbright et al., 1995) , and gender

differences have been reported in the severity of impairment (Feldman, Levin,

Fleischmann, Jallad, Kusch, Gross-Glenn et al., 1995) . The base rates of impairment

cannot be estimated unless these issues are considered, but this might be the first study of

an offending population to consider them.

The socio-economic profile of the prison population in England and Wales differs from

that of the general population, in that manual workers are represented at levels greater

than chance (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) . However, the degree of difference is variable, and

likely to be less at an open prison, where white-collar offenders may form a significant

sub-group, than at a high-security prison, where a larger sub-group is imprisoned for

crimes of violence.

Because income and occupation are also predictive of reading attainment (Carey et al.,

1997) , in order to determine whether reading levels are an independent risk factor for

criminality, data from both the prison population and the general population must be

stratified by social-economic group. This investigation follows Bell et al. (1983) , Haigler et

al. (1994) , and Jensen et al. (in press) in recording such details. Data about the

12

respondent's most recent occupation and the breadwinner's occupation in his childhood

home were collected, as well as data on family size and structure, basic home amenities,

and whether the childhood home was rented or owner-occupied. In these respects, this

study goes further than previous investigations of dyslexia in prisons.

The prisons from which the sample was drawn were as representative of the estate as a

small selection could be, in the hope of extending the validity the study to the wider adult

male prison establishment. Unlike the other English studies included in Table 3.1, this

study follows ALBSU (1994) in that aim.

No study has suggested that there might be differential prevalence rates of dyslexia

according to ethnicity, although different rates of difficulty have been observed between

users of alphabetic and non-alphabetic writing systems. However, membership of a

minority ethnic group may be associated with economic disadvantage and cultural

differences in the use of literacy in the home (Heath, 1983; Stubbs, 1980) . This study

follows Bell et al. (1983) and Haigler et al. (1994) in describing the ethnicity of

respondents. In this, it differs from (ALBSU, 1994) survey, which disregards ethnicity,

while going further than Carey et al. (1997) , who distinguish only between mother-

tongue and second-language speakers of English, despite the implications of interactions

between economic disadvantage and ethnicity for literacy policy.

The possibility of boosting the sub-sample of ethnic minority participants was considered

but rejected. If the ethnic minority response rate proved equal to that of the majority

group, the expected number would be sufficiently large for any significant differences to

appear. If, on the other hand, it was lower, then, because their diffidence about low

literacy would be the likeliest reason for potential participants to decline to take part, the

sample would still be subject to bias, no matter how much it was boosted.

13

Like other studies of prisoner literacy, this investigation sought to exclude potential

participants identified by prison staff as mentally ill. Because there is evidence that some

mental illness is causally linked to dyslexia (Horrobin, Glen, & Hudson, 1995; Richardson,

1994; Stein, 1994) , exclusions might have biased the findings by excluding potential

participants in this way, but findings from an epidemiological survey (Williams & McGee,

1995) suggest that the effects of such an omission are negligible.

Penal system variables

Even within the same jurisdiction, local variations and change over time in penal system

variables such as prosecution policy, conviction rate, sentencing policy, and classification

and allocation policy, all make comparisons difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, it was

important to establish whether there were any significant relationships between prisoner

classification and neuropsychological or other deficits.

Taking into account the possibility of variation in security classification as a function of

impairments in social cognition or stress tolerance, this study was designed to test

hypotheses involving penal system variables. In this, it goes beyond previous studies of

adult prisoner literacy in England and Wales.

However, variables such as age of first contact with the police, age at first conviction, and

whether or not the index offence involves violence, have predictive value in relation to

reading ability. In view of the findings, albeit inconsistent, associating differences in

literacy with type of offence (Gainsley, 1984; Hollin & Wheeler, 1982; Lewis, Shanok,

Balla, & Bard, 1980; Spellacy, 1978) , this study was designed to investigate competing

hypotheses about a relationship between reading ability and violent offending.

It was hypothesised that impairments in social cognition might characterise men

imprisoned for sexual offences. Such impairments must be distinguished from the more

commonly-observed cognitive distortions of sex offenders, reviewed by Ward, Hudson,

14

Johnston, & Marshall (1997) , as it has been observed that some sex offenders have marked

impairments in their understanding of figurative language (A cognitive skills tutor,

personal communication). This present investigation differs from previous studies of

prisoner literacy by testing this hypothesis.

Within the limits imposed by time and cost, it was necessary to maximise the sample size

in the hope of creating sufficiently large subgroups for the analyses to produce statistically

significant findings. On the basis of a minimum of five completed interviews each

working week, a target of 225 interviews was set before the fieldwork began. In the event,

the epidemiological sample reached 203. Fifteen interviews were completed in the most

productive week, four in the least productive week. With the addition of the research

sample of 17, the total reached 220. Table 3.2 (above) offers a comparison with the sample

size of selected studies in the field.

Research studies are inevitably defined by the skills and interests of those who undertake

them. The research orientation of previous investigations is indicated in Table 3.3 (below).

15

Table 3.3 Selected Studies of Reading in Offender Populations.

Team studies Authors Research OrientationLITERACY Black et al. (1990)

ALBSU (1994)Haigler et al. (1994)

Education Education Social Science, Education

DYSLEXIA Alm & Andersson (1995)Jensen et al. (in press)Surrey Probation Service(1995)

Social Science Psychology Probation, Education

OTHER Bell et al. (1983) Psychology, Education

Single-investigatorstudies

LITERACY None

DYSLEXIA Chester (1995)Morgan (1996)Schweiger (1997)

Social Science Probation Social Science

OTHER None

Instrumentation

The following account of research instrumentation has been drawn only from previous

epidemiological studies of reading and reading problems in offender populations.

Only two of the studies (Black et al., 1990; Haigler et al., 1994) set out to investigate

functional literacy by using a selection of test items of graded difficulty taken from

everyday life, such as newspaper articles, instruction sheets, and timetables. Both studies

drew on the theoretical and practical approach adopted by Kirsch & Jungeblut (1986) , and

each was related to a study of functional literacy in the general population, by Wickert &

Kevin (1995) in Australia and by Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad (1993) in the USA.

A similar form of test, developed for the Basic Skills Agency, has been used in two studies

16

of functional literacy in British birth cohorts, namely those by Ekinsmyth & Bynner (1994)

and by Bynner & Parsons (1997) .

To assess specific learning difficulties, Bell et al. (1983) and Schweiger (1997) used

screening tests. Chester (1995) and Morgan (1996) used screening questionnaires,

supplemented by psychometric tests taken from the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test

(Nicolson & Fawcett, 1995) in the former case and by the Bangor Dyslexia Test (Miles,

1982) in the latter. The problems arising from unsupplemented use of a screening test are

discussed below.

A more diagnostic approach was adopted by Surrey Probation Service (1995) , which

combined the Vernon Graded Word Spelling test with the Raven Standard Progressive

Matrices (Raven, 1956) and the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton &

Pintilie, 1982).

The only investigation to attempt a full diagnosis of dyslexia was the study by Jensen et

al. (in press) , which employed an extensive battery of psychometric tests for this purpose.

Again, only Jensen et al. (in press) assessed executive functions and for this purpose, too,

a psychometric test battery was employed.

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

functioning.

Only Jensen et al. (in press) assessed participants for psychopathy, and for this they used

the SCID (Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon, & First, 1992) .

Fluid intelligence was assessed with the WAIS-R tests by Bell et al. (1983) , with the Raven

SPM (Raven, 1956) by Surrey Probation Service (1995) , and with the Swedish Standard

Intelligence Battery by Jensen et al. (in press) .

17

For crystalline intelligence, both Bell et al. (1983) and Jensen et al. (in press) employed

WAIS-R sub-tests while Surrey Probation Service (1995) used the British Picture

Vocabulary Scale (Dunn et al., 1982).

Bell et al. (1983) and Jensen et al. (in press) collected social background data in structured

interviews. They and Chester (1995) , Morgan (1996) , and Jarratt (1997) also collected data

on the educational history of each participant. In none of these studies was it possible to

obtain information other than by the participant's self-report.

The total time taken to assess, interview, and perhaps also to check the prison records of

each participant varied from less than half an hour (Chester, 1995) to more than ten hours

(Bell et al., 1983) . In Jensen's study, the total for each participant was four and a half

hours.

Design limitations

The limitations of this design are to some extent a by-product of the gap between its aims

and the resources available to implement them. Although the cross-sectional method is

appropriate for a survey, it cannot resolve the problem of explaining behaviours that are

the result of change over time. The constraints imposed by time and available funding

could have prompted a study in depth with corresponding sharpness of focus.

Alternatively, a decision could have been taken to make the greatest use of an opportunity

to go into prisons by extending the range of the enquiry at the expense of depth and focus.

The advice received on this dilemma was divided. In fact, a decision was made to pursue

several simultaneous investigations, not least because however much sense a single line of

enquiry makes in psychology it makes little sense in social science. However, the use of a

single investigator for a multi-disciplinary enterprise was a further limitation.

Reliance upon a single informant creates additional difficulties. These problems are

exacerbated when informants' memories are impaired by substance abuse or by emotional

18

or physical trauma. Reservations about informant reliability were a sufficient reason for

excluding some questions from the interview schedule. They impose caveats about the

interpretation of answers to some of the questions that were included.

The instrumentation chosen for the survey was determined in part by time constraints

and in part by the investigator's lack of appropriate qualifications. The unstandardised,

experimental nature of some of the instruments used raises important doubts about their

validity, especially in the case of the Author Recognition Checklist. Other issues relating

to test-retest reliability and inter-rater consistency could not be addressed. All of these

problems urge caution on the interpretation of the findings.

The sample

Introduction

The universe for this investigation is the adult male prison population of England and

Wales. It is a population defined initially by jurisdiction. However, because of changes

over time in both legislation and sentencing policy, apart from local variations known to

exist between one crown court and another, the prison population (although defined by

the jurisdiction) is not the expression of a single penal policy. In practice, the implied

differences are immaterial for present purposes. Highly material, however, are the

marked demographic differences between the prison population and the general

population. Not only with respect to age and sex, but also with respect to socio-economic

status and ethnicity, general population data require stratification before meaningful

comparisons can be made with the prison population. These comparisons are tabulated in

Chapter IV.

19

The population

The population sampled for the epidemiological study comprised the convicted adult

males serving custodial sentences in seven prisons selected to represent all security

classifications.

Selection constraints

No claim is made for the sample's representativeness. It has been debated whether

criminality is evenly distributed throughout the population or whether it is concentrated

in the groups disproportionately represented in the prison population (Box, 1981; Taylor,

Walton, & Young, 1973) . But whether or not anti-social personality is evenly distributed,

criminality as it is operationalised by the penal system is incontestably represented

disproportionately in various social groups whose home localities, in turn, are unevenly

dispersed geographically (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) . While the siting of the 120 or so prisons

in the estate attempts to accommodate this dispersion, both the historically determined

locations of old county gaols that have since become local prisons and the social and

financial constraints on the siting of new prisons have led to a situation in which there is

limited comparability even between prisons of the same security category serving the

same regional population. Thus no prison is a microcosm of the penal estate. It follows

that no survey of a single prison population is likely to have ecological validity and that

findings from a survey of several prisons are to some degree inapplicable to any one

prison. However, it is difficult to determine the number of prisons that would constitute a

sufficient sample of the entire estate, as can be seen by the different ways in which other

investigators have addressed the problem. On the ground that no two prisons were alike

in intake and regime, the 1991 National Prison Survey (Dodd & Hunter, 1992) took a ten

per cent sample from each of the establishments in the prison estate, ninety-seven of

which housed adult males. A study of mentally disordered prisoners (Gunn, Maden, &

Swinton, 1991) drew its adult male sample from seventeen prisons. A study of suicide

and self-injury in male prisons (Liebling & Krarup, 1993) included sixteen prisons in its

20

epidemiological study and a further four prisons in its intensive study. A review of

regimes in prison service establishments (HMCIP, 1993) drew its sample from sixty-four

establishments, with special emphasis on the south-west of England.

Thus, if representativeness requires both a proportionately large number of prisons to be

sampled and a relatively large sample size, the present study is unlikely to be fully

representative. However, its findings may be useful for policy-makers in indicating a

range of values for its measures, in addition to any usefulness it may have in articulating

and refining hypotheses for future research. Since, on many variables, within-prison

variance proved to be greater than between-prison variance, the need to derive the

present sample from a larger quota of men in a smaller selection of prisons might be

justified both pragmatically and theoretically.

Originally, the plan was to draw the sample from two contrasting prison clusters. The

perceived advantage of this plan was that it would allow the survey to include a larger

and more representative number of establishments than are comprised in a single cluster

and also indicate whether there were significant regional differences over and above the

differences that might be expected between individual prisons.

Although guided by theoretical considerations, the selection of prisons in this survey was

pragmatic. It was decided to begin with the East Anglian cluster for three reasons: its

proximity to Cambridge, personal acquaintance with an intermediary through whom

access was negotiated, and the prospect of a good rapport between the investigator and

his fellow East Anglians and Londoners, who comprised the majority of the prisoners

there.

Shortly after the fieldwork began it became clear that, even when planning two months or

more ahead, the investigator would have insufficient time to negotiate access to the

number of establishments originally envisaged. The decision to continue with the East

21

Anglian cluster of prisons nevertheless presented an opportunity to compare two local

and two category C training prisons, to present findings of interest and use to a single

education provider (in this case, Norwich City College), and possibly to avoid longer

delays in negotiating access, while deferring a decision about applications to prisons

outside this cluster. The sample fraction was accordingly doubled. In the longer run, this

change produced other benefits. Even in the two prisons where duration of the survey

was brief, there was enough time for the investigator to develop good working relations

with uniformed staff and to become a familiar and thus unthreatening sight to potential

participants. It also offered a better chance to observe prison life while the investigator

was left to his own devices on the wing.

Following advice when, several weeks after application was made, the category B training

prison in East Anglia refused access because of staff shortages, an application was made

to HMP Garth, a large category B establishment in Lancashire with a catchment area

extending from Shropshire to Cumbria and including Liverpool and part of Greater

Manchester. This was an ideal contrast to the London and East Anglian catchment area

served by the first five prisons in the sample. Although the application for access to HMP

Full Sutton, the seventh and last prison in the sample, was also determined by practical

rather than theoretical considerations, it reinforced the regional contrast. Like all dispersal

prisons, HMP Full Sutton serves the whole establishment, but most of the prisoners

interviewed there originated from the north of England.

As a result, the prisons in this necessarily restricted sample contain a population drawn

from a variety of residential localities. It is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of

the way in which the sample was drawn that differences attributable to residential

localities may be inseparable from differences attributable to security classification. This

problem, and other sources of bias, will be discussed more fully in Chapter IV.

22

In the first prison, a simple random sample was drawn. It was not immediately clear that

this would result in differential representation between the four wings, one of which was

given over to the enhanced regime. That form of sampling would have been undesirable

at HMP Norwich, where each wing contained a distinct sub-population. From HMP

Norwich onwards, a stratified random sample was drawn wing by wing and, where

possible, by security classification as well.

Of a total of 245 prisoners invited to take part in the survey, 203 agreed to participate. The

response rate varied from one prison to another. The likely factors accounting for this

variation included the way in which men were invited to participate, the perceived value

of the alternatives offered by the regime, and a range of personal factors.

With those who agreed to take part, it was possible to complete every interview except

two. One interview was curtailed when the participant needed to discuss a pressing

personal matter, but not before it was possible to determine his functional literacy and

whether he had any specific reading problems. A second interview was abridged because

of the elderly participant's medical condition, which limited the commitment that could

fairly be asked of him. All other interviews were completed, even if they required two

sessions.

Refusals

Men declined to take part for various reasons, some of which were explicit while others

had to be inferred. The available information has been tabulated in an attempt to estimate

the extent to which the refusal rate may have biased the findings and in which direction.

Ideally, the sample should have been assessed for its representativeness by comparison

with data for the current population in each prison. This was not possible. In a larger

study, it would have been desirable to compare men who declined to participate with

their randomly-selected substitutes, but with these numbers it is unlikely that any

differences would have have reached statistical significance. As a compromise, a

23

comparison was made between the participants and men who declined to take part on

measures of age, current offence and, where possible, ethnicity. The absence of significant

differences on any of these measures does not guarantee similarity on any other measures.

The critical determinant of a man's willingness to participate might have been his

perceived reading competence. Unfortunately, when objective assessments of reading

competence were sought, many prison education departments proved to have incomplete

records. Where prison assessments could be compared with those made in the course of

the study, there was little correspondence.

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

The investigative instruments

Introduction

Although many of the investigative instruments developed for use with children can be

employed in epidemiological as well as classroom or clinic settings, there are few

instruments obviously suitable for use in epidemiological surveys of adults. With the

instruments used in this survey, it was impossible to satisfy demanding criteria of

standardisation and validation, given an over-riding need to ensure that instruments used

with wary adults should have face validity. Nor was it always possible to find tests

allowing comparison with the general population. Instead, tests permitting comparison

only among members of the sample were employed. With these, it was possible to

determine the direction but not necessarily the degree of difference between groups.

There were further unresolved problems of test-retest reliability, and not least the problem

of day-on-day variation in the performance levels of individual participants, although in

group comparisons these variations might cancel one another out. There was an

advantage in brevity and breadth of coverage over depth and narrowness, since the

prevalence of specific cognitive dysfunctions in the adult prison population is a relatively

unexplored issue and so requires an exploratory study before specific questions are

addressed in detail.

24

Functional literacy

The test used to assess functional literacy was the Reading Tasks module of a battery of

materials for assessing competence in basic skills (Basic Skills Agency, 1992) . These

materials were prepared by Cambridge Training and Development Ltd as part of the

Basic Skills Accreditation Initiative, a project which ran from 1988 until 1991 and was

jointly funded by the Department of Education and Science and the Employment

Department. The materials were designed to provide an initial assessment procedure for

use in various contexts, including prisons.

Preparatory work for the Reading Tasks began in the 1970s, when functional approaches

to literacy were being debated in the UK. ALRA, a forerunner of the Basic Skills Agency,

was influenced by this debate. Useful sources for comparison outside the UK are Kirsch &

Jungeblut (1986) , Kirsch et al. (1993) , and Wickert & Kevin (1995) . The development of

literacy assessment batteries in the United Kingdom appears to have been less scientific

than ideological. It is not simply that, drawing on practitioner knowledge, the assessments

were criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced, but that the early assessment

batteries were not tested in order to ensure an orderly progression from simple to more

difficult items (Martin Good, personal communication).

Regrettably, the present study was under way before details became available of the

Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) now being undertaken on behalf of the US

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. However, component skills

not tested by the BSA reading tasks are assessed in the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (see

below). These skills include spelling, word recognition, phonemic analysis, rapid

automatised naming, and short-term memory (John Strucker, personal communication).

By combining modules from the BSA and DAST batteries, a reasonably comprehensive

skills assessment can be performed.

25

The practical requirements determining the choice of test were, first, that it should permit

comparison between the prison sample and a sample of the general population. Since a

study of the 1970 birth cohort (Ekinsmyth & Bynner, 1994) had used the same approach

with similar Basic Skills Agency reading tasks, and the mean age of the cohort at testing

was not too remote from the anticipated mean age of the sample in the present study, the

Reading Tasks appeared to be an apt choice. Subsequent publication of a literacy

assessment of the 1958 birth cohort (Bynner & Parsons, 1997) , which had used an updated

and improved version of the Basic Skills Agency reading tasks, appeared to offer the

possibility of general population comparison over a wider age range. (Interpretational

problems are discussed in Chapter IV.)

It was not until the fieldwork for the present study was nearly completed that a major

survey of adult literacy in Great Britain was published (Carey et al., 1997) . This study,

part of the International Adult Literacy Survey (see also OECD, 1995) , assessed nearly

four thousand adults, using a Balanced Incomplete Block (BIB) design like that used in the

study of US prison literacy (Haigler et al., 1994) where it is more fully described. Since the

administration procedure, testing each participant on only a selection from the battery

and varying the order of items in response booklets (known as BIB-spiralling), requires a

larger sample than was feasible in the present study, the technique could not have been

employed here. However, if the IALS task battery could have been adapted for use in a

smaller survey, it might have permitted more extensive general population comparisons

than can be made with the cohort studies.

A second requirement was that the test should have face validity. Although nearly every

participant accepted without question the relevance of interview and assessment modules

to a study of reading and reading problems, it seemed critically important to affirm the

purpose of the survey in the early stages of the session. The derivation of the reading tasks

from everyday, adult, civilian life satisfied this requirement.

26

A third and related requirement was that the test should be free from any negative

association with classroom assignments, lest memories of school failure lowered the

participant's motivation or led him to abort the interview. The reading tasks came as close

as possible to satisfying this requirement.

It was also important that the assessment could be conducted without depressing poor

readers. The reading tasks satisfied this criterion, too.

There were eleven reading tasks, some of which had alternatives of more or less

equivalent difficulty. They consisted of prose passages (including a simple poster, a

recipe, and a broadsheet newspaper report) and graphical items (including a town map

and a set of instructions for using a washing machine). The participant was asked to read

the test passage silently and then to answer two or three questions about it. He was

permitted to refer to the passage while answering. At lower levels, the questions required

selection of factual details. Only on the eleventh task was the participant asked to make

inferences from what he had read or to detach his own views from those of the writer.

There was a low ceiling to the attainment level required by the reading tasks, which even

in a prison sample created a skewed distribution. The tasks assessed the ability to read

small print more than they seemed to test vocabulary, and one or two participants had to

be given the benefit of the doubt because, even when wearing their reading glasses, they

could not discern the small print in a classified directory facsimile (R6). A few questions

could have been worded more clearly (R9.2), depended on questionable assumptions

(R2A.1), or should have been discarded as guessable (R5.2), but these minor flaws had no

effect on the assignment to attainment levels.

Specific reading difficulties

In order to assess the possibility that participants in the Survey might be dyslexic, the

Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (Nicolson & Fawcett, 1995) was used. The theoretical

27

background to the DAST is outlined in a study establishing the feasibility of a computer-

based screening test as the first stage of a two-stage diagnostic procedure for adult

dyslexics (Nicolson, Fawcett, & Miles, 1993) .

The aims of the original proposal for a computer-mediated test procedure had been to

avoid dependence on taught skills and to extend the range of tests beyond phonological

processing to a more fundamental level of information-processing. In the event,

development of the computer-mediated test was held up by withdrawal of Department of

Employment funding, and the battery was developed as a pencil-and-paper exercise with

some dependence upon taught skills.

The DAST is a battery of ten sub-tests for the assessment of rapid automatised naming,

word recognition, postural stability, phonemic segmentation, spelling, verbal working

memory, de-coding, fine motor co-ordination and accuracy in writing, verbal fluency, and

semantic fluency. On some of the sub-tests, notably rapid automatised naming, timed

word recognition (at speed), and the de-coding of non-words embedded in an otherwise

normal passage, developmental dyslexics would be expected to obtain poor scores as their

problems are defined by such deficits. In addition, developmental dyslexics might be

expected to obtain poor scores on the verbal working memory task, in line with many

empirical findings. On the semantic fluency tasks they might be expected to obtain scores

that were markedly superior to participants' scores for verbal (or alphabetic) fluency. The

written tasks made it possible to record their choice of writing hand and to make a

rudimentary classification of the quality of their handwriting as a simple measure of fine-

motor skill.

Theoretical difficulties relating to the concept of dyslexia have been reviewed in an earlier

chapter. Among these difficulties is the etiological significance to be attached to patterns

of variance in skill deficits. Discussion of both this issue and the question of specificity in

reading disability will be resumed in the next chapter.

28

Like any other screening test, the DAST represents the first stage of a two-stage diagnostic

process. Since the rationale for a screening test is that both dyslexic and garden-variety

poor readers congregate at the lower end of a continuum of reading ability, placement of

the cut-off score is determined by the requirement to exclude as few genuine cases as

possible-or, in other words, to minimise the number of false negatives-at the primary

stage, without over-burdening the secondary stage with a large percentage of true

negatives (see Table 3.5 below).

Table 3.5 Allocation of Results on a Screening Test.

A C T U A L

MM Positive Negative

PRE

MMPositive TruePositive

FalsePositive

DICTED

MMNegative FalseNegative

TrueNegative

Nevertheless, a screening test must by definition be over-inclusive, provisionally

identifying as genuine both cases and non-cases - or true and false positives. It is thus

axiomatic that not everyone whose 'risk' score-or 'At-Risk Quotient'-rises above the

imposed threshold of a screening test will prove at the second stage of assessment to be a

developmental dyslexic. It is also within the theoretical considerations that the aggregate

score of a well-compensated 'residual' dyslexic may fall below the threshold for the

battery but indicate 'risk' on some of the component tests. The DAST is thus useful both as

a screening test and as a diagnostic battery for investigating strengths and weaknesses in

reading and reading-related sub-skills, even without a second-stage assessment to

29

investigate the probable etiology of any weaknesses. However, it cannot be used on its

own to reach a definitive view of the cause of the weaknesses it identifies.

Clearly, a single definitive diagnostic assessment would have been preferable, but a

single-stage full assessment employing an instrument such as the WAIS-R would have

been outside the investigator's competence, even if time and money had been available for

it. An even more exhaustive assessment battery, such as that used by Jensen et al. (in

press) , was out of the question. Moreover, the WAIS-R might have posed equal difficulty

with respect to the causal hypotheses. It has been argued that DSM-IIIR categories cannot

reliably be distinguished on the basis of WISC subtest profiles (Rispens, Swaab, van den

Oord, Cohen-Kettinis, van Engeland, & van Yperen, 1997) , and the same logic applies to

the adult version of the Wechsler test battery.

A simple, and feasible, alternative would have been to use a symptom checklist. The

usefulness of self-report checklists in epidemiological studies has been confirmed (Boyle,

Offord, Racine, Szatmari, Sanford, & Fleming, 1997) . The US National Adult Literacy and

Learning Disabilities Center (1996) Checklist schedules many characteristic dyslexic

behaviours but cautions that 'most adults exhibit or have exhibited some of these

characteristics'. The checklist recommended by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation

(Vinegrad, 1994) is more specific and claims discriminant validity but, although useful as

a filter for psychometric testing, it offers none of the objective measures of reading and

reading-related skills that are possible with the DAST.

A further reason for adopting the DAST was the possibility that, as data are accumulated,

reliable general population norms will become available.

In practice, the DAST was simple to administer. Although it was devised to screen willing

referrals and self-referrals, it stood up well to the more robust demands of

epidemiological screening. Even in the spelling test, where a perfunctory performance

30

might have been anticipated, it sustained a high level of motivation. For the balance test,

nobody objected to wearing the welders' goggles that served as a blindfold, and no

interview room proved too small for the participant to stand up and to take the few paces

that this test might have required.

As would be expected in prison research, some of the assessments took place against a

background of ambient noise, particularly the closing of iron gates and the rattling of

keys. Accordingly, the phonemic discrimination was sometimes difficult to score, and the

participant's concentration was occasionally disturbed as he tried to concentrate on the

short-term verbal memory task. Where the background noise became too loud, the order

of sub-tests was re-arranged. There was no indication that this problem or its solution had

a significant effect on the scores.

There were particular problems in testing those with limited or no reading skills and those

who spoke English as a second language. The non-readers were tested on rapid

automatised naming, balance, verbal short-term memory, and semantic fluency, while the

poor readers were assessed on these tests and also, where possible, on the phonemic

segmentation and verbal fluency tests. Some of the speakers of English as a second

language were able to attempt all of the tests and to obtain scores in the normal range.

Some obtained 'at-risk' scores because they had neither mastered English phonology nor

developed complete automaticity in reading and writing English. Others were able to

attempt only a few of the tests, on which they nevertheless obtained normal scores.

Without exception, speakers of English as a second-language took longer to complete the

rapid naming task in their mother-tongue than they did in English.

It was unfortunately not possible to record all aspects of test performance. Misreadings in

the one minute word-recognition task seemed worth analysing. The vocabulary generated

in the verbal fluency and semantic fluency tasks showed up interesting qualitative

differences between the vocabularies of men scoring at the same levels. Although a

31

verbatim record of parts of the verbal fluency task was taken occasionally, the

investigator's rapid longhand was nevertheless too slow to capture much on paper. There

were interesting differences between the orderly and haphazard recall of the names of

animals in the semantic fluency task, suggesting variation in lexical organisation and

content, as well as variation in ease of access, which might have correlated with other

measures if they could have been recorded. It is unlikely that permission to make tape

recordings would have been granted at Garth or Full Sutton, even for this purpose, but

recordings might be the basis of a useful study in a low-security prison.

Fluid and crystalline intelligence

The participants' intelligence was assessed principally in order to test the advocacy-group

belief that among people with reading disabilities there is a reserve of unexploited ability.

By determining whether poor readers with relatively high fluid intelligence scores came

disproportionately from the higher socio-economic classes, it was also possible to assess

support for the hypothesis that reading disability plays a causal role in the development

of criminality.

For a test of fluid ability, a selection was made from Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices (Raven, 1956) . There are sixty matrices in five sets of twelve, each set employing

a different principle of variation which it tests at progressive levels of difficulty. The

principles themselves are also arranged in ascending order of difficulty. The first item in

any set is much easier than the last item in the previous set. In each set there is a matrix of

two or three vertical and horizontal rows of patterns, but the last item of the last row is

omitted. Printed below is a multiple-choice display including the item needed to complete

the matrix, which the subject has to identify, usually by inductive reasoning. The correct

item meets criteria established by both the horizontal and the vertical sequences, so that a

solution reached horizontally can be cross-checked vertically and vice versa.

32

The validity of the SPM is well-attested, and they are particularly useful in assessing

disadvantaged people whose real ability may not be reflected in their attainments (Kline,

1993) .

The SPM offer internally consistent scales, which may imply a degree of narrowness that

compromises validity. On the other hand, the SPM correlate substantially with other

intelligence tests, particularly with tests of fluid ability. Their predictive validity for

educational achievement is lower than that offered by tests of crystalline intelligence,

because the latter are more closely linked to cultural factors influencing educational

success (Kline, 1993) . This effect is differential across the range of socio-economic classes,

and more marked at the lower end from which the majority of the prison population

derive.

However, the norms may be unreliable, jeopardising comparisons between individuals

and sub-populations (Kline, 1993) . Furthermore, the scores have been found to

underestimate subjects with little or no previous experience of testing. Nevertheless, the

SPM appear to be the most suitable test for subjects unlikely to do well on tests of

crystalline ability. There was thus no reason to suppose that they would be unreliable in

differentiating the mean fluid ability levels of sub-groups in the present study.

Raven's matrices were designed to be used as a group test, although they can be

administered individually, as was done in this study. Two practical considerations

influenced that way in which the matrices were used. The first was the limited available

time. It was impossible to allocate as much as the forty-five minutes required for all sixty

items to be completed, and neither was it necessary, as only internal comparisons were

required. (Because the difficulty of the matrices is progressive, it is possible to map a

selection of the items on to the complete set, giving an estimate of the minimum percentile

levels that could have been reached if every item had been administered. This procedure

33

will be discussed in the next chapter.) It was therefore decided to select twenty-five of the

matrices for use in the present study.

The second practical consideration was the expected ability range of the prison sample. In

the light of discussions of the intelligence of offenders by Hirschi & Hindelang (1977) and

Farrington (1994) , it seemed prudent to make a selection that would create a greater

dispersion at the low end of the ability range. Guided by the expected score compositions

at various ability levels presented by Raven, Court, & Raven (1992, Table SPM II, p. 38),

the following items were chosen:

Table 3.6 A Short Form of Raven’s SPM.

S E T T O T A LI T E M S

R A V E N S P M I T E M N U M B E R S

A 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11

B 6 2 4 5 7 9 12

C 5 1 3 5 7 9

D 4 + 1 1 2 6 8 12

E 1 + 4 4 5 8 10 12

25 + 5

All subjects were asked to attempt the basic selection of twenty-five items. The first

subject to be assessed made twenty-five correct responses. To lessen the chance of a

ceiling effect, five difficult items (italicised in Table 3.6) were added. From the second

interview onwards, any subject who made the correct response to B12 and E4 was also

invited to attempt the additional items.

In practice, the selection was easy enough to sustain the morale of less able subjects while

containing enough variation in difficulty for the investigator to observe longer latencies in

the more difficult items. However, a greater dispersion would have been obtained if fewer

34

items had been included from set A and correspondingly more items included from sets

B, C and D.

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

It was desirable to measure relative levels of crystalline ability in order to assess aspects of

reading ability and practice that were not covered by the assessments for functional

literacy and specific reading difficulty. In addition, correlation was expected with other

indicators of reading motivation and experience.

The obvious choice for a measure of verbal ability would have been the Mill Hill

Vocabulary Scale developed for use with the SPM. However, this Scale is administered as

a pencil-and paper multiple-choice exercise, easily associated with school tasks, and thus

likely to alienate some participants. Moreover, it relies on a higher level of decoding

ability could be expected from many participants. There appeared to be no direct measure

of verbal ability that would permit both of these problems to be addressed. The British

Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Pintilie, 1982) was considered.

Although it permitted an oral response, the pictures themselves looked too much like

pictures from a schoolbook to be suitable. An experimental proxy measure was therefore

devised by adapting an instrument developed in North America, the Author Recognition

Test (Stanovich & West, 1989) . The ART was adapted despite the possibility that it might

be necessary to abandon the resulting data as uninterpretable; the risk seemed worth

taking. However, even if the data could not be interpreted as a proxy measure of verbal

ability, they were unarguably useful as a direct measure of exposure to print. Moreover,

because of the way in which the UK version of the ARC was compiled it was possible that

the data would be of interest and use to prison librarians.

Following the Canadian model, a checklist was composed of the names of fifty popular

writers, with the names of fifty people not known to be popular writers as foils. A list of

35

popular authors' names was obtained by inspecting the display at a well-known high-

street bookseller and stationer. An attempt was made to represent fiction and non-fiction

writers from various categories most likely to read by men in prison. 'True crime' writers,

however, were excluded, despite their popularity in prison libraries. Following Stanovich

& West (1989) , the names of writers likely to have been read at school were omitted. The

list of eighty-five names was reduced to fifty-five on advice from a prison librarian, who

indicated which authors on the list were already represented in the Library. A further five

names were then eliminated. The names of fifty foils included members of staff at the

Institute of Criminology, members of Darwin College, and other friends and

acquaintances. When all of the names had been arranged in alphabetical order, the

sequence of best-selling writers and others was effectively randomised. (The Author

Recognition Checklist is reprinted as Appendix V). The protocols were adapted with

minor alterations from Stanovich & West (1989) .

The Checklist was presented to participants near the end of the interview, after they had

been asked whether they had visited the prison library within the past fortnight. They

were shown that it contained a hundred names, printed on both sides of the paper, and

asked to put a tick beside any names that they recognised as the names of writers. The

score was the sum of authors' names ticked. It was decided not to follow the Canadian

model by deducting a point for any foil incorrectly ticked. Such errors were in any case

infrequent and thus unlikely to make a significant difference to the relative order of the

aggregate scores.

There were two reasons for including a measure of exposure to print in the present

survey. The first is that it measures environmentally-mediated individual differences in

reading and spelling ability caused by differences in orthographic processing skills

(Stanovich & West, 1989) . To the extent that these skills are linked to print exposure, they

are environmentally mediated and thus not simply the result of innate phonological

processing ability. Because the Author Recognition Test provides a measure of exposure

36

to print, it predicts the variance in orthographic processing that is independent of

phonological factors.

A second reason for including a measure of relative levels of exposure to print was that

reading contributes to cognitive growth by helping the acquisition of general knowledge

and by developing vocabulary and knowledge of syntactic structures (Stanovich, 1993) . It

has been shown that, even after the differences in working memory, general ability, and

educational level are controlled, exposure to print is a significant predictor of vocabulary

and declarative knowledge (Stanovich, West, & Harrison, 1995) . For example, in a study

of college students a composite measure of print exposure produced correlations of .8 or

more with measures of general and cultural knowledge and a correlation of .74 on a

measure of cultural literacy (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993) . If, moreover, the benefits

from exposure to print may catch up and surpass the benefits from exposure to speech

when readers encounter written language that is richer and more complex than the

spoken language they typically experience in conversations and on television (Greenberg,

Ehri, & Perin, 1997) , exposure to print may account for large differences in verbal ability

among subjects from the lower socio-economic classes, since these differences are unlikely

to be accounted for in any other way in this part of the population. A measure of exposure

to print might thus be expected to have not simply a high correlation with crystalline

ability but one that is higher in a lower-class, prison sample than it would be in a middle-

or upper-class sample from the general population.

The principal disadvantage in this course of action was that the use of two un-normed

measures made it impossible to compare relative levels of fluid and crystalline ability in

this sample. The best that could be done was to determine whether superior scores in one

domain were matched by superior scores in the other, but this procedure was itself

problematic as there was no way of telling how much of the general population's ability

range was covered by the ARC, and neither could it be safely assumed that this coverage

was even. There was a further problem, in that any assessment of verbal ability that

37

requires reading or writing is likely, in theory, to under-estimate of the abilities of

dyslexics. Both the Mill Hill Scale and the ARC could be faulted on this account. An oral

assessment might have avoided this problem, but only by creating others, particularly for

subjects with working memory problems. However, while wide vocabularies are by no

means inconsistent with reading disability they are unusual and perhaps not to be

expected in a sample such as this.

There were no practical problems in administering the ARC.

Attention

Deficits in attention and verbal short-term memory are commonly comorbid with reading

disabilities. They are therefore a potentially confounding variable in a study such as the

present one (see, for example, Virkkunen & Nuutila, 1976) , not least because of the

powerful association of the construct attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with

childhood conduct disorder and later criminality. In a study of reading disabilities, the

critical period for these deficits is the first three years of schooling, when the alphabetic

principle should have been mastered.

Of the four challenges had to be addressed at this point, the first was to identify a reliable

and valid instrument for a retrospective measure of attention.

The second was conceptual. Was the primary impediment in the case of poor readers with

attentional problems a poor verbal short-term memory shown by an inability to sustain

attention, or was it a problem with selective attention? Alternatively, if difficulties of both

kinds were to be expected, how much would it matter if their measurement was

confounded?

38

The third was methodological. A retrospective measure of childhood behaviour is best

made from more than one observer's evidence. Loss of recall, false recall and informant

bias are obvious risks, compounded when the informant is the subject of the enquiry.

The fourth was evidential. It was desirable to determine whether the alphabetic principle

was actively taught in the classroom or, alternatively, whether the subject was left to

absorb it from curricular and extra-curricular activities. Insofar as any situational attention

problems in the classroom were the result of curriculum content and classroom

management techniques before they became habitual behaviours, they could then be

differentiated from pervasive problems of organic origin.

The Wender Utah Rating Scale appeared to meet the criteria for a standardised and

validated retrospective assessment of childhood ADHD. It was, in addition, simple to

administer and its interpretation did not require clinical judgement (Ward, Wender, &

Reimherr, 1993) .

The assessment battery already included a reliable test of verbal short-term memory,

namely the digit span component of the DAST. This posed two further methodological

problems. It measured current not childhood performance and, while a degree of

continuity across the lifespan might be expected in a normal population, it might be

necessary to control for any common characteristic of the prison population, such as long-

term drug or alcohol abuse, depression, or head injury, that might impair current

performance. There was a particular problem in assigning clinical significance to accounts

of head injuries, given the absence of reliable clinical records and the contradictory

findings reported in the literature. The impossibility of resolving these difficulties

satisfactorily rendered any findings provisional.

A satisfactory method is still needed to address attentional problems not necessarily

linked to verbal working memory but nevertheless likely to impair the process of learning

39

to read. It has been suggested that sustaining attention over time-what schoolteachers call

'paying attention'-is unlikely to be the primary problem for children with an attention

deficit (Taylor, 1995) . More recently, it has been argued that in ADHD inattention is not

so much a primary symptom as a secondary one, and that a distinction can be made

between sustained attention (persistence) that is contingency-shaped and that which is

self-regulated and goal-directed (Barkley, 1997) . Working memory deficits, in this model,

are identified as a primary symptom of ADHD. This model is specific to the child who is

distractible and lacks persistence, who is distinguished as having a different disorder from

the child who is dreamy and rather slow.

These distinctions may be far from operationalisable in a readily-available diagnostic

instrument. They are discussed here as an indication that in this respect, as in so many

others in this study, the findings are likely to be complex.

Although it seemed as though this study would have to use a test of ADHD with which it

would be feasible neither to pinpoint the form of attentional deficit principally associated

with reading failure nor to distinguish between the attentional and other components of

the ADHD construct, a degree of differentiation was possible, guided by a published

factor analysis of the WURS (Stein, Sandoval, Szumowski, Roizen, Reinecke, Blondis et al.,

1995) . As this analysis identified five factors and published separate factor weightings for

males, it was possible to construct a scale composed of the most heavily-loaded items for

Conduct Problems (I), Stress Intolerance (III), and Attention Problems (IV), omitting

Learning Problems (II) and Poor Social Skills (V) as this investigation addresses those

issues in other ways. The items selected for this study, including two negatively-loaded

foils, re-phrased in British English, together with their factor loadings, are reproduced in

Table 3.7 (below).

40

Table 3.7 WURS Factor Loadings (Male).

I T E M I III IV

I was active, restless, always on the go. .41I found it hard to concentrate. I was easily distracted. .67I was anxious and worried. .45I was in trouble with the authorities, or in trouble at school. .58I was nervous, fidgety. .42I did not pay attention. I was a daydreamer. .60I was hot-tempered, with a low boiling point. .49I had trouble seeing things from someone else's point ofview.

.48

I had tantrums, or lost my temper easily. .50I had trouble finishing things I had started. .63I was reckless and a dare-devil. I did things for kicks. .46I was the leader. I was bossy. -.41I teased other children. .58I wasn’t satisfied with life. I didn't get a kick out of things. .42I disobeyed my parents. I was rebellious and defiant. .68I was irritable. .49I was untidy and disorganised. .64I ran away from home. .41I was angry. .51I was well organised, tidy, neat. -.55I was a bit immature. .42I lost control of myself. .60I felt guilty or regretful. .41

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

There were two further departures from the way in which the shorter WURS was

administered by its originators. First, instead of being a pencil-and-paper exercise, the

checklist was presented as a set of sort cards. Each item was printed on a green card

measuring six inches by four, which was then laminated. Second, the number of response

options was reduced from five to three, so that instead of scoring each response from 0

41

through 4, the possible scoring was 0, 2, 4. Because the subjects were asked to sort the

cards into three wallets, marked 'Not at all like me, or only very slightly', 'Quite like me',

and 'Very much like me', and because these wallets were not numbered (although they

were always arranged from the subject's left to his right respectively), it is unlikely that

the aggregate scores were inflated by this simplification. It was impressed on subjects that

the period of interest extended from their earliest memories at three or four years old until

they were thirteen or fourteen, but no later. The cards were handed to the subject one at a

time, and a new card was handed over as soon as the previous card had been sorted,

without any comment from the investigator except an occasional reminder about the time-

frame. Most subjects were able to read the cards silently. For subjects unable to do this, the

card was read aloud before being handed over. The meaning of 'irritable' was explained to

about ten subjects. When all of the cards had been sorted, they were placed in their

respective wallets, to be coded after the session was over.

Social cognition

It has already been noted that the functional literacy assessment provided only a brief

opportunity to assess inferential ability, and it was a limitation of that opportunity that

the passages used literal rather than figurative language. Because other important reading

subskills remained to be assessed, and because reading-disabled subjects have been found

deficient in these subskills, possibly in consequence of impairments in social cognition like

those associated with Asperger's syndrome, which is in its turn comorbid with dyslexia at

levels above chance, it was decided to assess the verbal aspect of social cognition rather

than, for example, aspects of face recognition.

There were no suitable tests immediately available for use with adults. To meet this

needed, adaptations were made of four of the 'Strange Stories' developed for the

assessment of autism and Asperger's syndrome in children (Happé, 1994) . A fifth story

was adapted from unpublished work by Muir & Norden. Each story required the

participant to draw an inference about a character's thoughts and feelings, guided by an

42

expression in figurative language. This short battery (reproduced in Appendix VI) became

the assessment of social cognition.

Every participant who was able to read the simple language in which the stories had been

written was invited to read them silently. The questions were asked and answered orally.

The stories were read aloud to subjects who were unable to read for themselves. In an

inadvertent departure from standard practice with children, participants were not asked

to turn over the page and answer the questions from memory. Answers were recorded

verbatim in the interview booklet and scored during the test.

Receptive syntax

Because both written and oral communication can be impaired by misunderstanding of

word order rather than of word meanings, and because such misunderstandings affect

social behaviour, it was decided to make a separate assessment of receptive syntax. This

assessment was included in order to discover whether there was any correlation with

other variables in the survey, particularly literacy subskills.

A simple, experimental instrument was devised by adapting seven intensional sentences

from originals by Scholes & Willis (1991) . The instrument is reproduced below in Table

3.8.

43

Table 3.8 Intensional Sentences: A Test of Receptive Syntax.

1 If Gerry helps Jim, who does the helping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Intensionality-with-an-s' has been defined as a property of a certain class of sentences,

statements, and other linguistic entities: a sentence is said to be intensional if it fails to

satisfy certain tests of external reference (Searle, 1983) . Because intensional sentences

exclude the possibility of reliance on contextual clues, the questions in this assessment

battery are valid for the purpose of testing skills in syntactic analysis.

If skills in syntactic analysis are included among the metalinguistic or cognitive skills that

distinguish literates from illiterates (Scholes & Willis, 1991) , a positive correlation could

be expected between the scores on this battery and other measures of cognitive and

linguistic ability, supporting the view that 'the handicap of illiteracy is far more profound

than is suggested by the inability to read' (Scholes & Willis, 1991, p. 230).

A difficulty in explaining such a correlation might arise from the effects of brain injury.

Indirect requests, which resemble intensional sentences in their syntactic complexity while

44

differing from them in their inferential demands, have been found to create difficulties for

patients with right-hemisphere damage (Stemmer, Giroux, & Joanette, 1994) , and it seems

reasonable to suppose that traumatic injuries among members of the sample might have

impaired their performance on this assessment. However, while traumatic injuries are a

potential confound, they might also assist the understanding of linguistic problems of

socio-cultural origin so that, even if etiologies could not be reliably ascertained,

appropriate interventions could be devised.

The questions were read aloud to all subjects as in this way it was possible to standardise

the emphases and pauses. The responses were scored in the interview booklet. There were

no problems in administering this assessment.

It happened on about ten occasions that a subject would answer question 7 and then wish

to re-consider question 5. Since it was always the case that he had incorrectly answered

the easier question but correctly answered the more difficult one, this revision was

permitted, as it would have been in a pencil-and-paper test. There are two conflicting

issues here. On the one hand, impulsiveness may have been a factor in the original

response to question 5. On the other hand, self-monitoring was a factor in the participant's

wish to revise it. Since this module was not an assessment of impulsiveness but one of

receptive syntax, it was helpful to be able to eliminate a confound at source. Nonetheless,

impulsiveness might confound the responses of some subjects scoring below the normal

ceiling on this assessment.

Motor and vocal tics

The comorbidity of dyslexia and Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome has been considered in

Chapter II. Although the low prevalence of GTS minimises the likelihood that it could

seriously confound any study of a relationship between dyslexia and anti-social

behaviour, it was included for the sake of completeness. This decision was supported by

an observation that a high proportion of patients attending a tertiary referral clinic for

45

GTS had indications of personality disorder (Robertson, Banergee, Fox-Hiley, & Tannock,

1997) . The present investigator was trained in the recognition of motor and vocal tics by

Dr M. M. Robertson at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. It must be

emphasised that this was not a training in the diagnosis of GTS.

In the clinic, diagnosis of GTS is made by direct observation with the help of a symptom

checklist (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) . Subjects are observed for a period

during which the variety of different motor and vocal tics are noted, together with a

record of their frequency. In the present study, an abbreviated list of symptoms was taken

from the National Hospital's Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome Schedule (Robertson &

Eapen, 1996) and included in the Post-Interview Questionnaire as questions 120 and 121.

In the event of a participant producing motor or vocal tics during the interview, it was

planned to make a discreet note of the tics and their frequencies on a blank sheet of paper

and to enter the details after the participant had left the room.

There were no practical difficulties in observing symptoms of GTS or in recording them

without alerting the subject to the fact.

The Structured Interview

Introduction

The content of the structured interview was determined by practical considerations. The

most pressing was the limited time available for the interview and assessment session.

The options were either to contain everything within a single session or to ask each

participant to attend two or more sessions. The over-riding consideration was that the

fieldwork had to be concluded within a calendar year in order to allow time for analysis

and writing-up. Within that period, a target number of two hundred interviews had to be

completed. Most prison regimes were likely to permit a maximum of two hours in the

morning, afternoon, or evening. Because of the time required for access negotiations, lost

appointments, and sessions unavailable as a result either of regime requirements or of

46

participant commitments, a pessimistic forecast suggested that it might be possible to fill

no more than five sessions a week. A no less pessimistic assumption was that the

participation rate (and thus the representativeness of the sample) might be compromised

by the prospect of commitment to more than one session. However, even if participants

were willingly available for more than one session, the calendar requirement was for a

single session. When a safety margin was included, to allow for late starts and slow or

particularly detailed responses, the target duration for the session was set at an hour and

three-quarters. Within this limit, everything had to be contained.

Time was not the only constraint. Questions needed to be accessible, not only in their

vocabulary and syntax but also in their cultural assumptions, to the widest range of

participants. These considerations made for greater explicitness and thus for greater

length. There was a further constraint in the difficulty of framing questions in a

retrospective enquiry. Only on those matters where the response was likely to be accurate

as to fact and within the set time-frame could questions reasonably be included. No

questions were included about the methods by which participants were taught to read in

their elementary schools, for example, even though this information would have

enhanced the value of the survey. In retrospect, this exclusion might have been over-

scrupulous: a filter question, asking simply whether or not the participant had any

memories of learning to read, might have led to a choice from two or three simple

descriptions of teaching approaches.

It addition, it was decided to limit the number of questions that might cause participants

any distress. On a small number of occasions, memories of being abused as children or of

marital breakdown in adult life prompted tears. Although participants were not asked

about the offences leading to their imprisonment, a number of men chose to tell me why

they were in prison, although only on one occasion did this cause visible distress.

Even if complete faith could be placed in participants' accuracy of recall and freedom from

retrospective bias, the design of the study is undoubtedly compromised by its dependence

47

upon a single informant interviewed on a single occasion. For between-group

comparisons this might not matter very much if, as is likely, the effects are similar for each

group, but it has unarguable implications for the ecological validity of the study. To some

extent, therefore, the findings should be regarded not as definitive but as hypotheses for

further investigation within a prospective longitudinal, multi-informant research study.

Sources of the questions

The questions included in the interview schedule were drawn from a reading of the

literatures on literacy and anti-social behaviour. Where possible, they were taken

verbatim or with minor adaptations from published studies so as to facilitate comparison

of the findings. Problems arose when questions were included without adaptation on the

assumption that they had been run successfully in the past, although these were

principally matters affecting the analysis, not the wording.

Question and assessment modules

The session was designed as a sequence of modules in which question sets alternated with

assessments. The purpose was to establish a sense of pace and variety within the

interview, to affirm its validity as an investigation into reading, and to progress gradually

from an unchallenging start, through a potentially stressful central section, to a relaxed

and amicable conclusion.

The Interview Schedule is reproduced in Appendix VII.

After introductory remarks, in which the participant was thanked for agreeing to take part

in the survey and assured of confidentiality, the purpose of the study was summarised

before he was asked the first question set, concerned mainly with health and language.

48

Functional literacy was the subject of the first assessment. This was selected as initially

unchallenging for nearly all participants and offering early confirmation that the focus of

the study was reading. It was also likely to present an opportunity to observe participants

as they addressed themselves to a task, in this case to note whether they moved their lips

or followed the words with a forefinger.

The second question set addressed the participant's everyday life, his employment

history, and his civilian recreations. Apart from the useful insights into the participant's

personality permitted by the recreational questions, the opportunity to talk about matters

that gave him pleasure helped to establish an easy rapport for the more taxing modules

that followed.

The second assessment module, for specific reading disability, was the longest, lasting

between twenty and twenty-five minutes. By the time it was completed, the session was

half-way through. The principal components have already been described. The

investigator cannot exaggerate his gratitude to the participants for their willingness to

undertake these tasks. In a few instances, written items were omitted to spare the least

literate participants any embarrassment. Proxy scores below the fourth percentile were

then entered. While the loss of exact data may be regretted, this action probably earned

sufficient goodwill for the remainder of the schedule to be completed. On a few occasions

when time was running short after a late start, the interview was halted at this point and

resumed in a later session.

The third question set was, potentially, the most emotionally disturbing of the sequence.

For this reason, it was scheduled after the half-way point. It was anticipated that questions

about the early years, family relationships, and the childhood home, would evoke

distressing memories, as they did for several participants. Nevertheless, the momentum of

the session was by this time sufficient to carry things through.

49

If a dampening effect was needed after the emotional demand of the previous module, it

was provided by the assessment of fluid intelligence. This usually took between five and

seven minutes to complete. At first, participants were asked to identify their answers by

sticking a red roundel over the response option on each page (which was enclosed in a

clear filing pocket). The protocol had the double attraction of leaving the participant to

work through the selection at his own pace and giving the interviewer a welcome break in

concentration. Later, when unsticking the roundels with artists' petrol had become the

investigator's most tedious task in the daily round, participants were asked to state the

number of the item that they had chosen, and this was entered on the mark-sheet as they

replied.

The fourth question set asked about education. For some participants, this proved their

most valuable contribution to the study, as they commented on their school histories.

The next module consisted of three brief assessments. The card-sorting exercise for the

assessment of childhood attention-deficit and hyperactivity was brief and often engaging.

A number of participants smiled as the legends reminded them of their childhood selves.

The questions assessing receptive syntax were quickly asked and answered. The Strange

Stories used to assess social cognition were easy enough for most of the participants to

read for themselves, but it was noticed that some who had read the functional literacy test

passages without moving their lips began to move their lips in the Strange Stories. (The

significance of this observation will be considered in Chapter V.) Although it was not part

of the assessment to record any appreciation of the droll humour of the fourth and fifth

stories, a marginal note was made if the participant laughed or smiled, as many did. It

was certainly intended that by this stage the mood of the session should be lighter.

The last question set addressed miscellaneous issues concerned with the participant's

adult life. Among them were his domestic situation at the moment of his arrest and any

50

involvement with further or higher education in prison. In this way, the formal part of the

session was planned to end neutrally on a matter of current interest.

However, just before the participant left he was asked to look at the Author Recognition

Checklist, the proxy measure of verbal intelligence that was a natural sequel to a question

about his use of the prison library. Participants were shown that it was printed on both

sides of the paper. No record was kept of the number of men who needed a reminder that

the checklist continued on the reverse side, although it might have become a telling

simple measure of prospective memory.

The last question in the structured interview was an invitation to talk about any topic that

had come up in the course of the session. A large number of participants welcomed this

opportunity, and for a variety of reasons. A few sought to extend the investigator's

knowledge of prisons and prisoners and helped him to contextualise the research. Others

spoke of problems that concerned them, such as that of being a good parent to a teenage

child while in prison. Yet others reflected on their experience of school and the way that

this had influenced their attitudes to their children's education. Those who acted as

amanuenses for less literate prisoners spoke about this, while men who had used

amanuenses recounted their side of the experience.

When the participant had left the interview room, the post-interview checklist was

completed. On the single occasion when a participant had motor tics, a record was begun

on a sheet of paper attached to the interviewer's clipboard, so that the entries represented

a transcription of current observations. The last question, about standard or non-standard

English, was sometimes answered after reference to the verbatim transcriptions of

responses to the social cognition questions and other comments taken down verbatim in

the interview booklet.

51

Feedback from participants

The success of this design in meeting some of its criteria can be judged in two ways. First,

feedback from early interviews in any prison or on any wing appeared positive to the

extent that only one refusal occurred as a certain reaction to hearsay about the research. At

other times, it was clear that the feedback helped to confirm a tentative agreement to

participate. On many occasions when participants were encountered after the interview,

they were spontaneously friendly and asked how the research was progressing. There

were exceptions, of course: the men who would pass silently by in a corridor, either

because they were shy or because they could not afford to arouse suspicion by being seen

in conversation with a stranger. But these exceptions were rare.

Logistics

Introduction

There was no pilot survey to test the logistics of the research. A limited amount of

guidance was offered before the interviews started. Beyond that, it was decided to

accommodate the research programme to the best provision that prison authorities were

able to offer. Two procedural modifications were suggested by experience. The first was

to stratify the sample wing by wing and where, as at HMP Garth, the population on the

wing consisted of distinct categories of prisoner, to stratify by category, too. This change

was implemented at HMP Norwich. The second procedural modification was to approach

prospective participants in person rather than by an introductory letter. This innovation

was introduced at HMP Wayland.

Sampling procedure

Two study samples were included in the investigation, an epidemiological sample and a

research sample, although only data from the epidemiological sample were included in

the statistical analysis. The epidemiological sampling was undertaken in two stages. At

the first stage, a non-randomised but diverse sample of seven prisons was drawn. At the

52

second stage, a stratified random sample of prisoners was drawn from each prison. The

small research group was a non-randomised, convenience sample of men who either

volunteered themselves or were suggested by those who knew them as likely on account

of their reading problems to make a qualitative contribution to the research.

The prisons from which the sample was drawn were, in chronological sequence, HMP

Highpoint, HMP Norwich, HMP Wayland, HMP Chelmsford, HMP Hollesley Bay

Colony, HMP Garth, and HMP Full Sutton. They represent the full range, but not the

proportions, of adult male prisoner security classifications, with the exception of prisoners

held in special secure units.

All 203 participants in the epidemiological study were convicted adult male prisoners. In

the research study, fifteen men were convicted prisoners, one was on remand but had

previously served custodial sentences, and one was a Prison Service employee who

offered to take part because he himself had been assessed as dyslexic by an educational

psychologist.

At the outset, the sampling fraction was calculated by dividing the best estimate of the

aggregate certified normal accommodation for the prisons in the original programme by

the target number of interviews.

At each prison, a systematic random sample was taken. The practicalities of the sampling

procedure varied from prison to prison. Usually, the alphabetical LIDS print-out for each

wing was used as the sampling frame. The first name in the sample would be counted

from the head of the list to a previously-chosen random number. The sample fractions

would then be counted off and names, prison numbers, and locations recorded separately.

At HMP Chelmsford, the print-out listed names in order of cell number; as cell allocation

was randomised by availability, the list was used as printed. At HMP Garth, the random

cell allocations were displayed on the wall of each wing office, showing the prisoner's

53

security category and whether he was a lifer. It was thus possible to stratify the sample

from each wing in a way that preserved the proportions of Category C prisoners and lifers

in the establishment as a whole. The sample from HMP Full Sutton was strictly

unrepresentative of that establishment, as it could be taken from only two of the wings,

one of which was a sex offender wing. However, there was an attempt to make the sample

from the latter more representative of the prison as a whole in age (if not offence) by

including only those men whose age was listed as forty or under.

The wing complement divided by the sampling fraction determined the number of

interviews to be sought on any wing. Although it sometimes happened that every man

approached would agree to participate in the survey, a prudent assumption was that

some men would decline (or agree but later become unavailable for one reason or

another). The sampling was continued by recording names identified by the sampling

fraction until enough names were held in reserve for each category in the stratification.

Whenever a man in the main list declined to take part, no time was lost in identifying the

first reserve.

An effort was made to exclude those were known to be mentally unstable and those who

had not yet adjusted to life in their current establishment. On two occasions men on

induction were included, but on neither occasion did the test performance appear to

reflect any emotional disturbance. Three men currently held in segregation units for

offences against good order and discipline were interviewed. One man whom staff found

irascible was nevertheless interviewed. In all of these interviews, the men were

constructive and agreeable. Men whose mother-tongue was not English were included if

they seemed to understand English sufficiently well for the interview, as they were likely

to help in answering some of the research questions.

At first, when the sample had been drawn, a standard letter of introduction was sent to

prospective participants to invite their participation. This approach proved unsatisfactory:

54

letters were sometimes misdirected, and word-of-mouth responses were not always

forwarded by wing officers. Not only that, but it was impossible to assess the reasons for

non-participation and hence the likely direction of bias in the findings. The participation

rate at HMP Highpoint was particularly unsatisfactory, although with advance

information about the allocation to this prison a lower rate might have been predicted

because of the relatively high proportions of ethnic minority and violent offenders in their

early twenties. However, because of the high participation rate at HMP Norwich, it was

not found necessary to take action until HMP Wayland.

At HMP Wayland, the letter of introduction was abandoned and, instead, personal contact

with potential participants was sought on the wing. If the wing was on patrol state, the

investigator was escorted by a member of the uniformed staff who unlocked for him.

Otherwise, the investigator made his own way around the landings. When he met a

prospective participant, he introduced himself, explained the random selection process,

and summarised the aims of the research before inviting the potential participant to take

part. If the man declined, he could then be asked for his reasons. Otherwise, an

appointment was then made for the interview. This often took less than a minute.

It was explained that, just as the selection procedure was randomised, so all information

would be considered confidential. At the start of the interview, participants were told that

all records would be numerically coded for anonymity and that they would be merged in

the statistical analysis. Anonymity seemed to matter to few of the participants; only one

man declined to answer a question he feared might compromise the anonymity of his

data. Confidentiality was seldom an explicit consideration, possibly because the matters

that participants wished to keep confidential were those they would not divulge in any

circumstances.

55

Interview timetable

After prospective participants had agreed to take part, the interview timetable was

updated and a member of the uniformed staff entered the appointment in the wing diary.

There was little difficulty in arranging appointments to accommodate other commitments

such as anger management classes, visits, and medical consultations, or in re-scheduling

them if the prospective participant became unavailable for any reason. As a result, only

one and a half working days were lost after HMP Highpoint. Credit for this outcome is

shared between members of the sample, who usually alerted the investigator to

unforeseen commitments well in advance, and uniformed staff, who sometimes went well

out of their way to locate missing participants or their substitutes.

Interviews were timetabled to start at nine o'clock in the morning or two o'clock in the

afternoon. The occasional evening interviews, which took place only at HMP Wayland,

HMP Hollesley Bay Colony, and HMP Garth, and usually involved members of the

research sample rather than the epidemiological sample, began at six o'clock during

association time. A number of men were willing to be interviewed at weekends, willingly

foregoing association, and so weekend interviews took place at HMP Highpoint, HMP

Wayland, HMP Chelmsford, HMP Hollesley Bay Colony, and HMP Full Sutton.

Interview locations

Many of the sessions took place in a small interview room on the wing. Most frequently,

the interviews took place in a dedicated interview room, often one used by probation

staff. Other interview locations included offices, amenity rooms, television rooms, wing

libraries, a classroom, a prison chapel or vestry, and-in three instances-the participant's

cell. It seemed that participants felt more at ease on their wing than in the education block,

but in no case was the conduct of the interview compromised by the room allocated to it.

56

Logistical problems

Bureaucratic delay proved to be inherent to the process of obtaining permission for access.

Letters were useful, but only when they were followed up with telephone calls. Personal

recommendations were critically important on three occasions. But apart from an initial

delay of about two months, and a much later delay of six weeks, both associated with

major problems in dispersal prisons, the fieldwork ran smoothly, with no time lost

between finishing at one prison and starting at the next one. There was time to draft two

chapters before the fieldwork began, and to prepare most of the data for analysis before

the last round of interviews was undertaken.

Once permission for access had been granted, accessibility might have been problematic

because of the rural location of five of the prisons. However, the additional funding raised

was enough to permit the purchase of a car, so that it was possible to budget for cross-

country travel and local accommodation. The necessity for escorted movement within

three of the prisons could have been seen as a problem, either for the researcher or for the

prison staff. In fact, it proved relatively easy to accommodate the research timetable to the

movements of uniformed and other prison staff. At HMP Norwich, escorts were provided

mostly by members of the education staff and occasionally by probation officers and

prison chaplains. At HMP Garth and HMP Full Sutton, uniformed staff and prison

psychologists were the most frequent escorts. All of these occasions provided invaluable

opportunities to ask questions or to act as a sounding-board. On those occasions when it

was necessary to wait for normal staff movements at the end of a shift, there were

legitimate opportunities either to talk informally with men on the landings or simply to

observe the ways in which staff went about their duties.

57

Record-keeping

Quantitative data

At the end of each day's interviewing, data were transcribed from the booklet on to

transfer sheets which had been prepared to reduce the risk of error when data were

entered into the computer.

As often as the investigator returned to Cambridge, data were entered into the computer.

For viewing on-screen without scrolling, data from the interview schedule were entered

into four data files, using a typewriter font to maintain the column alignments. Separate

data files were opened for the DAST and the WURS data. The data matrices were saved as

text-only documents in Microsoft Word 5.1A for Macintosh. Copies of the data-set are

available for re-analysis at The Data Archive, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ,

UK.

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

Qualitative data

The daily routine of transfer sheet completion also offered a chance to make

supplementary notes about the interviews while their memory was fresh. In addition, a

record was kept of methodological issues arising out of the day's work. As often as

possible, case-notes were written for each participant and combined with a more general

record in the form of a research diary which eventually exceeded seventy thousand

words.

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

P R I S O N R E A D I N G S U R V E Y

M I C H A E L R I C E

D A R W I N C O L L E G E

C A M B R I D G E

Telephone 01223 500746

Start Time: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P A R T 1

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

Yes, all the time ................................. 1

Yes, for close work ............................ 2

Yes, for distant viewing/driving .... 33

No, but glasses prescribed ............... 4

No ........................................................ 5 2

2 Have you ever had your eyesight checked?Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 3

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

3 How about your hearing? Do you normally find it hard to hearwhat people are saying to you?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 5

a) What age were you when this problem started?

Write: ............................................................................................Code 4

4 Have you ever been to the doctor's about your hearing?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 5

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

........................................................................................................ Code

5

5 How often do you go to the dentist's?

Prompt as necessary For a regular check-up ...................... 1

For treatment only.............................. 2 6

Never ................................................... 3

6 Can you tell me if you have ever had:

Code all that apply asthma? ............................................... 1

hay fever? ............................................ 2

eczema? ............................................... 3 7

arthritis? ............................................. 4

DK/None of these ............................. 8

7 Are you taking anything that might affect your concentrationtoday (that's to say, drugs of any kind)?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2 8

NR ........................................................ 9

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

No ........................................................ 2 9

a) Did you do any of the tattooing yourself?

Yes ....................................................... 1 9

No ........................................................ 2

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

No ........................................................ 2 a)

a) Write details: .....................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 10

10 Suppose there was an accident where you injured one of yourhands. Which hand would it matter most to injure?

Right .................................................... 1

Left ....................................................... 2

Neither ................................................ 311

Previous injury to dominant hand . 4

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

R L

Hand

Eye

Code 12

12 Is English the only language you speak?

Yes ....................................................... 1 BSANo ........................................................ 2 a)

a) Has English always been the language you spoke with yourparents?

Yes ....................................................... 1 BSANo ........................................................ 2 13

13 What other language(s) do you (or did you) speak with yourparents?

Write: .......................................................................................

........................................................................................ Code 14

14 Do you read and write in (13)?

Yes: read ............................................. 1

Yes: write ............................................ 2 BSANo: neither read nor write ................ 3

That was the first part of the Interview.How do you feel about it so far - all right?Good.

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

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

Are you ready?

G O T O B A S I C S K I L L S A G E N C Y L I T E R A C Y A S S E S S M E N T

P A R T 2

15

Next, some questions about your everyday life, work, and spare timeactivities before you came to prison.Can you swim?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 16

16 Can you drive a car?Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 17

a) How many times did you take your driving test? .................... 17

17 Can you cook a meal by yourself? (Clarify: more than boiling anegg?)

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2a)

a) Have you ever decorated a room? (Painted or papered?)

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 218

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

Prompt as necesssary At least once a week........................... 1

Less than once a week....................... 2 19

Never ................................................... 3

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

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

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

Never ...................................................

(Check: Never drink at all?)

3 20

a) What's the most you'd normally drink in a session - say, if youwere out on a binge?

Write: ......................................................................................................

.......................................................................... Code units of alcohol 20

20 Have you ever had a bank account with a cheque-book?Yes ....................................................... 1 21

No ........................................................ 2

21 Have you ever had a passport?

Yes ....................................................... 1 22No ........................................................ 2 23

22 Have you travelled to foreign countries?

Prompt as necessary Yes, on my own ................................. 1

Yes, with others ................................. 2 23

No ........................................................ 3

23 Have you ever voted in an election? (Either a general election ora local government election.)

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 224

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

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

No ........................................................ 3

25 Have you ever won a certificate (or a cup or other trophy) in asporting event?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 26

a) Write details: .....................................................................................

.................................................................................................................. 26

26 Have you ever been awarded a certificate for passing anexamination?

Yes ........................................................ 1 27

No ........................................................ 2 28

27 Which examinations have you passed?

Prompt City and Guilds? ................................ 1

CSE? ..................................................... 2

O levels? ............................................. 3

GCSE? .................................................. 4

A levels? .............................................. 5

Degree or higher degree? ................. 628

Other (specify) ................................... 7

...............................................................

...............................................................

28 Just before you came into prison, did you have any kind of paidwork?

Yes ....................................................... 1 29

No ........................................................ 2 31

29 What was your job? Write: ..................................................................

................................................................... Registrar-General's Code a)

a) Employed............................................ 1 b)

Self-employed .................................... 2 30

b) Manager .............................................. 1

Foreman/supervisor ........................ 2 30

Other .................................................... 3

Interviewer code

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

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

| | | a)

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

Write amount: ...............................................................

Code 35

31 What were you doing just before you came into prison?Unemployed, seeking work .................................... 01

Unemployed, not seeking work .............................. 0232

Retired ......................................................................... 03

Waiting to take up a job/education/training ...... 04

In full-time education ............................................... 05

Long-term sick ........................................................... 06

Not working because bringing up a family .......... 0733

Living off crime ......................................................... 08

Visiting this country ................................................. 09

Other ............................................................................ 10

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

Years Months Weeks

| | | 34

Never worked ........................................................................ 1

33 May I just check: Have you ever done any paid work?

Yes ....................................................... 1 34

No ........................................................ 2 38

34 What was your most recent job? Write: ............................................

..................................................................................................................

a) Employed ........................................... 1

Self-employed .................................... 2

b) Manager .............................................. 1

Foreman/supervisor ........................ 235

Other .................................................... 3

Interviewer code

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

35 Did your work require you to do any writing (such as filling intimesheets or stocklists, or sending written messages of anykind)?

Yes ....................................................... 1 36

No ........................................................ 2 38

36 Did writing at work give you any problems?Yes ....................................................... 1 37

No ........................................................ 2 38

37 What problems did it give you?

Summarise respondent's difficulties with written tasks: ............

...................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................Code 38

38 In the last three months (or since you have been in prison), haveyou received any letters?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2 39

39 Have you written any letters (in the last three months)?Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2 40

40 Can I ask you a question about your life outside prison? Whatdid you normally like doing in your spare time? What sort ofthings are you interested in? Do you like:

Code all that apply listening to music? ............................ 01

Check: outside prison playing a musical instrument?......... 02

mending things (technical skill) ? ... 03

making things (craft skill)? ............... 04

DIY?...................................................... 05

films/theatre? ................................. 06

Favourite programme(s)? watching television? ......................... 07

socialising: pub/club/party? .......... 08 41

travelling? ........................................... 09 or

What? collecting things? ............................... 10 42

About what? reading? .............................................. 11

gardening? .......................................... 12

looking after animals?....................... 13

Games played? sport (participant)? ............................ 14

sport (spectator))? .............................. 15

Fruit machines? Horses? gambling? ........................................... 16

other (specify) ...................................

...............................................................

17

NR ........................................................ 99

41 PROBE reading, collecting.....

Code 42

42 Have you ever played games where you had to keep your eyeon a ball that was moving quite fast, like football, baseball,cricket, table tennis, or basketball? (Underline one - R's bestgame - as appropriate)

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 DAST

a) How would you rate your skill at (name of best game)?Prompt Good .................................................... 1

Average ............................................... 2 DAST

Not all that good................................. 3

G O T O S H E F F I E L D D Y S L E X I A A D U L T S C R E E N I N G T E S T

P A R T 343 I'd like to ask you now about your early years, your family, and your

childhood home. Is that all right? If R assents: From when you wereborn until you left school, who was it you lived with?

Both parents ....................................... 01

Probe fully One parent .......................................... 02and code all that apply

One step-parent and parent ............. 03

A step-parent only ............................. 04

Adopted parents ................................ 0544

Grandparent(s) ................................... 06

Other relative ..................................... 07

Foster parents ..................................... 08

None of these

......................................

09

44 Do you have any brothers or sisters?

No. of brothers................................... |

Probe: brothers, or No. of sisters ..................................... |half-brothers? No. of half-brothers........................... |

No. of half-sisters ............................. |a)

No. of step/adopted brothers......... |

No. of step/adopted sisters............ |

Only child ........................................... 99 45

a) How many of your brothers and sisters are older than you?

Reply: .................... So you're the ( ) child of the family? Code | 45

45 What age were you at your last birthday?

Respondent's age now ...................... |

NR ........................................................ 99 46

46 What age was your mother at her last birthday?

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

NR ........................................................ 99 47

Compute Mother's age when R born ............... |

47 Up to the time you started school, who looked after you?

Mother ................................................. 1

Other (specify) ................................... 248

48 Up to the age of 16, were you ever taken into care, or did youspend time in a borstal, an approved school, or a youngoffender unit?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 49

a) Why was that? (Summarise main reason) ...................................

....................................................................................................... Code 49

49 Can you tell me about where you lived when you were abouteleven - when you left your primary school? Did it look like anyof these pictures? (Show ACORN classification) If' Yes', Whichone? If 'No', How would you describe where you lived, then?

Write respondent's choice or description: .........................

...................................................................................................Code 50

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

Running prompt a television set? .................................. 01

a fridge? .............................................. 02

a telephone? ....................................... 03

a washing machine? .......................... 04

a daily newspaper? ........................... 05

a car? .................................................... 06

a dishwasher? ..................................... 0751

central heating? .................................. 08

a stereo or hi-fi? ................................. 09

a bookshelf with books in it? ........... 10

a garden? ............................................. 11

wall-to-wall-carpets? ......................... 12

CHECK main breadwinner

51 When you were about eleven, was your (father) working?

Yes ....................................................... 1 52

No ........................................................ 2 53

52 What job was (s)he doing?

Write job name or description ...........................................................

..................................................................................................................

Code 54

53 What was his/her job, normally?

Write job name or description ...........................................................

..................................................................................................................

Code 54

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

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

No ........................................................ 2 55

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

55 What happened when they got on badly? Did theyshout? .................................................. 1

Code all that apply smash things? ..................................... 2

hit one another? ................................. 3 56

hit you? ............................................... 4

leave home for a while? .................... 5

other (specify) .................................... 6

May we talk about you now? Everyone does things that are wrongwhen they are small children.

56 Did the grown-ups ever become angry if you did the wrongthing accidentally - like dropping something and breaking it, orlike losing something?

Yes ....................................................... 1 57

No ........................................................ 2

57 Before you first went to school, how often did you do things thatyou knew were naughty?

Quite often .......................................... 1 a)

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

Write examples: ....................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................... Code 58

58 Did anything happen to you when (your parents) found out youhad been naughty?

No parental reponse ......................... 1

PROBE Verbal (explanatory) ......................... 2

Code all that apply Verbal (angry) .................................... 3

Corporal punishment (token) .......... 459

Corporal punishment (harsh) .......... 5

Deprivation (emotional) ................... 6

Deprivation (material) ...................... 7

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

........................................................................................ Code

59

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

PROBE for erratic or Yes ....................................................... 1

inconsistent punishmentNo ........................................................ 2

60

60

May we move forward in time, to when you were a teenager - say, aboutfourteen or fifteen years old?When you went out, did (your parents) tell you what time theywanted you to be home again?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 261

61 If you came back late, what happened then?

Write respondent's answer: ................................................................

..................................................................................................................Code 62

62 Did you ever think about running away from home?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 63

a) Did circumstances ever cause you to run away?

Yes ....................................................... 1 63

No ........................................................ 2

63 Back to your (parents). Did they get any academic qualifications?

The sort of things I mean are:Father Mother

Degree ................................................ 1 1

Professional Diploma ...................... 2 2

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

O level/OND .................................... 4 4

Code highest GCSE ................................................... 5 5 64

CSE ...................................................... 6 6

City & Guilds .................................... 7 7

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

DK/Nothing....................................... 9 9

I expect you've heard that, by the age of thirty, about one man in three has beenconvicted of a criminal offence of one kind or another.

64 Have (your parents) or any other members of your family everbeen convicted of an offence?

Probe if necessary: Do you think they have?

Yes ....................................................... 1 65

No ........................................................ 2

DK ........................................................ 866

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

Parent .................................................. 1 1

Code all that Step-parent ......................................... 2 2

apply Grandparent ....................................... 3 3

Brother/Sister .................................... 4 4

Uncle/Aunt ........................................ 5 5 a)

Cousin ................................................. 6 6

Son/Daughter .................................... 7 7

Non-blood-relation/in-laws ............ 8 8

Other (specify) ................................... 9 9

a) Have any of these served time?

Yes ....................................................... 1 b)

No ........................................................ 2 66

b) Ask or record

Which members?

Code in grid above 66

Many people suffer from clinical depression at some time in their lives.66 Has any member of your family ever been clinically depressed? I

mean very depressed, for days or weeks at a time.Probe for medicalattention or hospital

Yes and sought medical attention .. 1 a)

treatmentYes but no medical attention ........... 2

No ........................................................ 3 c)

a) Which member(s)? Write: ..............................................................

..................................................................................................................

b)

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

..................................................................................................................

c)

c) Before you came to prison, did you yourself ever get clinicallydepressed?

Probe Yes and sought medical attention... 1

Yes but no medical attention ........... 2 67

No ........................................................ 3

67 One of the things that can depress people is frequent change of address.Up to the time you left school, did (your family) always live atthe same address?

Yes ....................................................... 1 69

No ........................................................ 2 68

68 When you changed your address, did you also change from oneschool to another?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 69

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

Write: .................................... Code

CHECK (Parents?)

69 Let's think about reading for a moment. When you were a boy, didyou ever see your (father) reading to himself?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 70

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

..................................................................................................................

Code 70

70 When you were a boy, did you ever see your (mother) readingto herself ?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 71

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

.................................................................................................................

Code 71

71 When you were a boy, did anyone ever read to you ?

Yes ....................................................... 1 72

No ........................................................ 2 74

72 Who was it who read to you?

Code all that apply Mother ................................................ 1

Father ................................................... 2

Sister/brother ..................................... 373

Other (specify) ................................... 4

73 Did you like being read to?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2 75

Depended on: (specify) ....................

............................................................... 3

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

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 275

DK ........................................................ 8

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

Read

a)

Write

b)

Spell

Code any Parent .......................................... 01 01 01

that apply. Step-parent ................................. 02 02 02

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

prompt. Brother/Sister ............................ 04 04 04

Uncle/Aunt ................................ 05 05 05

Cousin ......................................... 06 06 06

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

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

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

No-one ........................................ 10 10 10

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

G O T O R A V E N ' S S P M

P A R T 4

76

May we talk now about your education, starting with the time you weregoing to junior school?Did you ever have any problems reading what the teacher wroteon the blackboard?

Mostly.................................................. 1

Sometimes .......................................... 2 77

Never.................................................... 3

77 Did you ever have any difficulty in hearing what the teacherswere saying?

Mostly.................................................. 1

Sometimes .......................................... 2 78

Never.................................................... 3

78 Were you often absent from school for any reason that you

couldn't help (not playing truant)?Confirm junior school Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 79

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

..................................................................................................................

Code 79

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

Yes (some) .......................................... 2

No ........................................................ 380

Can't remember .................................. 8

80 How did you mostly spend your playtimes?

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

With other children ........................... 2

Can't remember .................................. 881

a) Why was that?

Probe Own choice? ....................................... 1

Peer rejection? .................................... 2

Peer indifference? .............................. 381

Other (specify)? ................................. 4

................................................................

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 82

82 Bullying is also quite common in schools. Did other children everbully you? (Physical pain that you didn't deserve, or things thatbelonged to you being damaged or broken or stolen, forexample?)

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2

Can't remember .................................. 383

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

..................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 83

83 Did you ever feel that you were different from most otherchildren?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 85

Can't remember .................................. 3

a) In what way? (Summarise) .............................................................

..................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 84

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 85

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

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

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

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

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

Code 86

86 Everybody gets hurt if they're in a fight. Were you ever hurt seriouslyin a fight at your junior school?Probe: So seriously that Yes ....................................................... 1you had to be taken to thedoctor or to hospital? No ........................................................ 2

87

87 Did you yourself ever seriously hurt another boy in a fight whileyou were at junior school?Probe: So seriously that Yes ....................................................... 1they had to be taken to thedoctor or to hospital? No ........................................................ 2

88

88 Apart from fights, were you ever in an accident during the timeyou were going to junior school when you:

Code had to have stitches? ............................................................. 1

all that had to have your arm or your leg in plaster? ................... 2

apply hurt your head and blacked out? ........................................ 3 89

needed a surgical operation? .............................................. 4

NONE of the above 5CHECK each option: And that happened while youwere still at junior school?

89Can you tell me about the teachers at your junior school?Were there any teachers that you liked very much?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 90

a) Why did you like them?

90

90 Were there any teachers that you strongly disliked?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2a)

a) Why was that?

91 Do you remember how often you had a new class teacher?Was it:

Infrequent (e.g. once a year or less) 1Frequent (e.g. once a term or more) 2 92

Don't remember ................................. 3

92 How much interest did your teachers take in how you weregetting on at junior school?

A lot ..................................................... 1

Prompt as necessary Moderately interested ...................... 2

Not very interested............................ 393

Not interested at all ........................... 4

93 Many children find school quite stressful to begin with, and this createsproblems for them, particularly in learning to read and spell.Did you yourself have any problems in learning to read orspell?

Reading and spelling.......................... 1

Reading only....................................... 2 94

Spelling only ...................................... 3

Neither ................................................ 4 95

Comments (if any):

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

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

Yes, spelling ....................................... 2

No ........................................................ 3 95

a) Did you go to a special school for help?

Yes ....................................................... 1 P

No ........................................................ 2 b)

PROBE for duration of help. Write: ................................................... 95

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

Yes ....................................................... P

No ........................................................ 2 c)

PROBE for duration of help. Write: ...................................................

c) What sort of extra help did you get?

Summarise: ............................................................................................

...................................................................................................... Code95

95 Did you have any problems with arithmetic? (Clarify if needed:doing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division)

Yes ........................................................ 1

No ........................................................ 296

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

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 97

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................Code 97

Check: Parents?97 Did (your parents) take an interest in how you got on at your

junior school?Prompt as necessary Yes, a lot .............................................. 1

Quite interested ................................. 2

Not very much interest ..................... 398

No interest at all ............................... 4

98 Did they ever help you with your schoolwork?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 299

99 Did they want you to do better than you knew you could do?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2 100

a) How did they show this? Write response: ....................................................................................................................................................

Code 100

CHECK: Siblings? If none, Code N/A and SKIP to 101

100 How about (your brother/s and sister/s): how well did they geton at school?Prompt as necessary Better than me .................................... 1

About the same as me ....................... 2

Not as well as me .............................. 3101

N/A ...................................................... 9

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

Frequently ......................................... 1 a)

Not very often .................................... 2

Never .................................................. 3 102

a) Were you ever:

made to stand in the corner? ............ 1

sent out of the classroom? ................ 2

suspended? ........................................ 3b)

none of these? ..................................... 4

b) Were you ever moved to another school because of yourbehaviour?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2102

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

Probe as necessary Yes, more than once .......................... 1

Yes, but only once ............................. 2a)

No ........................................................ 3 b)

a) How old were you when (or the first time) this happened?

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

b) Were any of your friends ever in trouble with the police? Yes .. 1

No/DK .... 2103

103 When you were at (your secondary school), how often did youskive off for the day?

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

Now and then ..................................... 2

Rarely .................................................. 3104

Never ................................................... 4

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

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

Fairly well ........................................... 2

Not as well as I should have done ... 3

Not very well ..................................... 4105

105 Do you think you would be in here now if you had done well atschool?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2

DK ........................................................ 8 WURS

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

..................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................. WURS

G O T OW E N D E R U T A H R A T I N G S C A L E ( S H O R T V E R S I O N )

&

FRANCESCA HAPPÉ'S STRANGE STORIES

P A R T 5106 Can we round things off with some questions beginning with your

home life before your arrest? Up to the time that you were arrested,were you living:

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

with wife/partner/friend? ............... 2

with parents? ...................................... 3

with in-laws or other relations? ....... 4

with friends? ....................................... 5107

with dependent children only? ....... 6

with adult children only? ................. 7

with any other (specify) ................... 8

107 Were you living:

Code first that applies

in accommodation that you owned? .................................. 1

in self-contained accommodation that you rented? ......... 2

in a bedsit or rooms with shared amenities? .................... 3

in a hostel or other temporary accommodation? .............. 4a)

were you living on the streets? ........................................... 5

or had you just arrived in this country? ............................ 6

Other (specify) ....................................................................... 7

a) Which of the photographs comes closest to where you were

living? Write type of accommodation: 108

108 At home, at the time you were arrested, did you have:

Running prompt a television set? .................................. 01

a fridge? .............................................. 02

a telephone? ....................................... 03

a washing machine? .......................... 04

a daily newspaper?............................ 05

a car? .................................................... 06109

a dishwasher? ..................................... 07

central heating? .................................. 08

a stereo or hi-fi? ................................. 09

a bookshelf with books in it? ........... 10

a garden? ............................................. 11

wall-to-wall-carpets? ......................... 12

109 In this household, whodid the shopping? Write: ...................................................

did the cooking? Write: ...................................................

did the cleaning? Write: ...................................................110

paid the bills? Write: ...................................................

Code respondent's role

110 I asked you earlier about accidents, but I didn't cover all thepossibilities. Accidents involving motor vehicles are all toocommon. Have you ever been involved in a motor accident?Probe if necessary: rolled or shunted, ran out of road, hit apedestrian or another vehicle?

Yes ....................................................... 1 111

No ........................................................ 2 112

111 How many times have you been involved in a motor accident?

Write estimate: ..................................

Code a)a) Was that as a passenger or as the driver?

Code either or both Passenger ............................................ 1 112

Driver .................................................. 2 b)

b) Were you ever the driver responsible for the accident?

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2112

112 Have you ever been had up for speeding?

Confirm fine orendorsement

Yes ....................................................... 1

No (but drives) ................................... 2113

Does not drive .................................... 3

113 Since your eighteenth birthday, have you ever been knockedout? Or hurt your head at work, in a game, in a road accident, orin a fight? Or have you had a stroke? [Code 'Yes' for possibleclosed head injury]

Yes ....................................................... 1

No ........................................................ 2114

114 Thinking now about your life here, do you feel safe from beinginjured or bullied by other prisoners?

Yes ....................................................... 1 115

No ........................................................ 2 116

115 Are there any particular groups or types of prisoner who youfeel are particularly threatening or dangerous to youpersonally?

Do NOT prompt unbalanced/mental cases ................ 1

sentenced prisoners .......................... 2

remand prisoners .............................. 3the ones who think they run theprison ..................................................

4 116

black/ethnic minorities .................... 5

racists ................................................... 6

all of them ........................................... 7

other (specify) .................................... 8

none of them ....................................... 9

116 Have you ever been to any educational or training classes in thisprison?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2

Only just arrived ............................... 3117

a) What classes are these? Write: ............................................................................................................................................................... Code b)

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

..................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................ Code 118

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

Yes........................................................ 1

No ........................................................ 2a)

DK ........................................................ 8 118

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

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................Code 118

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

Yes ....................................................... 1 ARC

No ........................................................ 2

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

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

End Time: . . . . . . . . . . .

P O S T - I N T E R V I E W C H E C K L I S T - I N T E R V I E W E R C O M P L E T I O N

120 Did the interviewee have any motor tics involving the:

hair, scalp, or brow

eyes

nose

lips or mouth

h ead, neck, or shoulders

arms, hands, or fingers

torso, thorax, or pelvis

legs or feet

other (complex)

Code

121 Did the interviewee have any vocal tics such as:

throat clearing

grunting

gulping

sniffing

snorting

explosive calls

squeaking

pitch fluctuations

words or phrases

animal noises

different voices

other

Code

122 Was the respondent, physically speaking:

strikingly good-looking? .................. 1

moderately good-looking? .............. 2

ordinary? ............................................. 3

rather unattractive? ........................... 4

definitely unattractive or ugly? ....... 5

123 Was the respondent:

friendly, co-operative? ...................... 1

willing, passive? ................................ 2

unwilling, but compliant ................. 3

unwilling, grudgingly compliant ... 4

restless, fidgety .................................. 5

124 Did the respondent appear to enjoy the session?

yes ........................................................ 1

unclear ................................................. 2

no ......................................................... 3

125 Did the respondent appear to find the session stressful?

yes ........................................................ 1

unclear ................................................. 2

no ......................................................... 3

126 Was it possible to complete the tests and interview?

Yes........................................................ 1

No: some parts refused by R ........... 2

No; some parts abandoned by I ...... 3

127 How communicative was the respondent?

monosyllabic ...................................... 1

little spontaneous comment ............ 2

moderate spontaneity ....................... 3

talkative............................................... 4

excessively talkative ......................... 5

128 Did the respondent have a speech impediment?

Yes ....................................................... 1 a)

No ........................................................ 2

a) Describe:

Code

129 How long did the session last?

Hours: ..................... Minutes: .................................... Code

130 What was the tone of the session?warm, enjoyable, relaxed ................. 1

quite warm, enjoyable....................... 2

neutral ................................................. 3

reserved, tense, slightly unpleasant 4

very awkward or unpleasant ........... 5

131 Did the respondent: 4

speak rhythmically ............................

speak melodiously ............................

speak pedantically ............................

maintain good eye contact ...............

use gestures when speaking ............

Code

132 Did the respondent find it hard to understand any of thequestions?

Yes

........................................................

1

No ........................................................ 2

133 Did the respondent speak:

standard mother-tongue English?

.......................................

1

standard mother-tongue English with an accent? ............ 2

standard acquired English?

..................................................

3

standard acquired English with an accent? ....................... 4

non-standard mother-tongue English? .............................. 5

non-standard acquired English? ......................................... 6

Date . . . . . I . . . . . I . . . . .

,4 3 5 9

Cod= . . . . . f . . ...1..... 1 . . . . . 1 . . ...1.....

PRISON READING SURVEY(YOI)

M I C H A E L R I C E

D A R W I N C O L L E G EC A M B R I D G E

Telephone 01223500746

Start Time: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART 1

1 I’d like to start by asking you some questwns about your general

health Do you ever wear glasses?

Yes, all the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, for close work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, for distant viewing/ driving . . . .

No, but glasses prescribed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Have you ever had your eyesight checked?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

3 How about your hearing? Do you normally find it hard to hearwhat people are saying to you?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) What age were you when this problem started?

Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Have you ever been to the doctor’s about your hearing?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

1

2~..,

3

4

5

1

2

1

2

1

2

I 3

2

a)

3

a)

5

4

a)

5

5

2

—

\5 How often do you go to the dentisfs?

Prompt as necessary For a regular check-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For treatment only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 Can you tell me if you have ever had

Code all that apply asthma? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

hay fever? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

eczema? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

arthritis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DK/None of these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 Are you taking anything that might affect your concentrationtoday (that’s to say, drugs of any kind)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 Do you have any tattoos?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Did you do any of the tattooing yourself?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;:.

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cod

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

8

1

2

9

1

2

1

2

1

2

6—

7—

8—

a)

9

9—

10

a)

10

3

10 IS English the only language you speak?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Has English always beenthe language youspokewithyourparents?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 What other language(s) do you (or did you) speak with yourparents?

Languagrz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .European (Roman alphabet) . . . . . . . . . . .European (Non-Roman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .African . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 Do you read and write in (11)?

Yes read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes: write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No: neither read nor write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

1

2

12345

BSAa)

BSA11

12

1

2

D

BSA3

4

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

We ‘re now going to do thejirst Assessment.

The Assessments are all designed to show what people uith a m“de range of abzlities can do.

This means that nobody mull be able to do all of the tasks

If’s pmfictly normal to find some of the tisks dfjicult.

R’s also petfectly normal tojind some thaf you can’f do at aK

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

G O T O B A S I C S K I L L S A G E N C Y L . ITERACY A S S E S S M E N T

5

R E A D I N G A S S E S S M E N T S C O R E S H E E T

A

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

3

4

Anewer

Birmingham National Exhibition Centre orBirmingham NEC or Exhibition Centre or NEC.

The Fwm.

She wants her to do some shopping for her.

Because she is going to be home late.

At about 9 o’clock (this evening),

On the back of the transistor set.

The middle (or central) battery.

The middle (or central) battery.

She was very much the worse for we=or unsteady on her feat.

She licked the dregs from the barrel.

In a cattery or in Scotland.

Page 817 (Plumbers).

Any of 0 8 1 9 4 8 8 4 8 60 8 1 9 9 8 8 4 1 20 8 1 9 9 8 5 6 0 00 8 1 9 4 3 4 5 2 50 8 1 9 9 5 4 1 3 5Cellnet (0860) 822285

There are approxime My 10,000 types of grasses.

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

Rye.

Ears of wheat are ground into flour.

c

ElElElElEl

B

I NIA

EM#MIMlEMEM

EM6

7 1 1970.

2 40% or 21%+ 19%.3 Because more than one third of the workers who

lived in the new town waked to work. El

8 1 False.

2 False.

3 True. ElT O T A L C O R R E C T m

9El

L I P M 0 V E M E N T - fir completion during the Interview

No movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B

1

Almost imperceptible movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sinmlsted articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Audible vocalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

For completion after the Intmview is concluded.

Performance Criteria

1 Both correct.

2 Two or more correct.

3 Two or more correct.

4 Two or more correct.

5 Both correct.

6 Three or more correct.

7 Two or more correct.

8 Two or more correct.

T O T A L O U T O F 8

Y

Ii7

P A R T 2Next, some questions about your everyday life, work, and sparetime activities before you were sent down.

13 Can you swim?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 Can you drive a car?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Have you ever taken your driving test?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 Have you ever wall-papered a room, or painted it?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Can you cook a family meal by yourself?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Prompt as necessary At least once a week. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Prompt as necessary More than three times a week . . . . . . . . . .

Twice a week or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Check: Never drink at all?

a) What’s the tnost you’d normally drink in a session - say, if youwere out on a binge? Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Teetotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...)1 to 3 units of alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 to 10 units of alcohoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more units of alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

0

123

a)

14

a)

15

15

15

—a)

—16

17—

a)—

18

18 Have you ever had a bank account with a cheque-book?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 Have you ever had a passport?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Have you travelled to foreign countries?

Prompt as necessary Yes, on my own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, with others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 Have you ever won a prize in a competition? (If ‘Yes’, What did

you have to do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Establish if skill or Yes, skill required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .judgment required

Yes, no skill required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,. 22 Have you ever won a a cup or some other trophy or certificate ina sporting event?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

1- 19

2021

1 21

a)

23

23

24

25

24 Which public examinations have you passed?

Prompt City and Guilds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CSE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NVQ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GCSE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What? Other? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Where did you take your first public examinations?

At school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

At college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 Just before you came into prison, did you have any kind of paidwork?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 What was your job? Write: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self-employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreman/supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unofficial job/ black economy job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

E

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

999

Weeks

I

a)—

26

28

a)

b)

27

1 27

27

32

10

28 What were you doing just before you came into prison?

If 05, ask

Unemployed, seeking work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unemployed, not seeking work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waiting to take up a jobf education / training . . . . . . .

In full-time education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Long-term sick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Was that because you were doing drugs?

Circle the answen Y / N / NA

Not working because bringing up a family . . . . . . . . . .

Living off crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Visiting this country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 At the time you came to prison, how long had you beenunemployed?

Years Month

mNever worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 May I just checlc Have you ever done any paid work?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 31 What was the most recent job you were doing?

write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a)

b)

I

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self-empIoyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreman/supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

weeks

I

1

1

2

1

2“

1

2

3

F 29

1

30

31

31

35

.35

11

Unofficial job/ black economy job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 2 Did your work require you to do any writing (such as filling intimesheets or stocklists, or sending written messages of anykind)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 Did writing at work give you any problems?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 What problems did it give you?

Summarise respondent’s difficulties with written tasks . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Code

35 In the last three months (or since you have been inside), haveyou received any letters?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 Have you written any letters (in the last three months)?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 Have you ever played games where you had to coordinate yourhand and your eye? (Accept football and table tennis but alsotable football and darts.)

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) How would you rate your skill at (name of best game)?Prompt Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not all that good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

999

1

2

2

1

2

12

1

2

1

2

3

35

33

35-.

34

35

35

}

37

a)

38

38

12

38 May I ask you a question about your life on the out? What doyou normally like doing in your spare time? Do you like

Code all that apply Iistening to music? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Checlc outside prison? playing a musical instrument? . . . . . . . . .

mending things (technical skill) ? . . .

making things (craft skiIl)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DIY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

fiIms/theatre? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Faoourite programmed? watching television? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

socializing pub/ club /party? . . . . . . . . . . .

tit?

About what?

traveling? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

collecting things? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

reading? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

gardening? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

looking after animals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Games played? sport (participant)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

sport (spectator))? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fruit machines ? Horses? gambfing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Enter total number of recreations and hobbies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Code recreations and hobbies as predominantly

Aimless, hedonistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Active, self-motivated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Creative, reflective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

I

1

2

3

a)

b)

DAST

G O TO S H E F F I E L D D Y S L E X I A A D U L T S C R E E N I N G T E S T

13

DAST RESPONSE SHEET CODE . . . . I . . ...1.... t ..,..1 . . ...1.....

Rapid Naming Postural stability 1 Minute Reading (B)Tires (sacs) Arms by side ErrmErrora 1 Paeeea

2 Last word read

Time+ 5xermra (A) Words aaen@ed

Arms in front (B) nunber of errors and paaaaa

1 (C) amre (A-B)

2 lime

I [ (D) Bonus if <60 awonda i1 1 .,

TOTAL I Tota[ (mas 24) I TOTAL (C+D) I2 Minute Spelling

1 Ra inbow @sirr) Hand used 2 42 V@Nam (wafn) Handvdtinq quality 6 93 Marmalade (malade) (gsod/sverage/pcmr) 6 3 5A n.. (h 471a

5 Boat (oaf) Number sompleted 6 9 3 46 Stake (ake) Number of errors 38777 Stake (take) Number wrrast 4 1 6 2 38 Stake (atsv) Add 8 f used9 Snail (snay) 9.5+ spellings10 FISQ (lag) m11 Glow (fJO)12 Igloo (iq13 Jarvis Cocker14 Sean Connery i

Ionlythe 197-4~Q

IA

5 2 7 813864175

8 2 3 9 6 1

I&&&15 Shirley Bassey

Nonsense Passage Reeding 1 Mkwts writing Verbal FluencyIn the olden days, a nobactious rennifer set out to craiberg ~ord~ san enormous - that threatened his Iammeraill

_ ( A ) . . . . .

country. It was a really graawallv illadonter and after Time—) Bonuwkilling it he was chinaersomely tired. But the very next day for ~c~ 2he set out to Oliaondervock to arat%danter his stettlenab. seconds under

On his arrival, he met his bontuvildam at the hiraumling ao)( B ) TOTALstation. They were married and lived happily ever after E r r o r s semanticin a frumbunctious cottage in the forest. Penalty (1 point for Fluency

each 2 errors) Animals(c)

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

14

DA ST SCORE SHEET Code ----- I - . ...1.-... II . . . . . I . . . . . ] . . . . .

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

.

Subteet score - - - - - - 0 +

1 Rapid Naming 242 35-41 33-34 24 -32 <23

2 One Minute Reading O-32 33-79 80-86 87-109 27103 Postural Stability 1 6 - 2 4 1 0 - 1 5 5 - 9 1-4 0

4 Phonemic %gment’n o - 9 1 0 - 1 1 12 1 3 - 1 4 75

5 Two-minute Spelling 0 - 1 6 1 7 - 2 5 2 6 - 2 7 2 8 - 3 1 232

6 Backwards Span o - 2 3 4 5 - 7 28

0 - 4 6 4 7 - 6 3 64-72 73-86 287

9 One Minute Writing 0 - 1 6 1 7 - 1 9 2 0 - 2 5 2 6 - 3 2 >33

10 Verbal Fluency (S) O - 8 9-f7 12-13 1 4 - 1 8 219

11 Semantic Fluency O - 8 9-11 1 2 - 7 4 1 5 - 1 9 220

Column Totils

Subject’s age at testing years f!!Q&

Test behaviour mncentration

anxiety

Number with --- (A)

Number with -- (B)

Number with - (c)

At risk score (3xA) + (2xB) + C _ (D) Screening Diagnosis

At Risk Quotient(D)/10 (E)

I

15

PART339 I’d lzke to ask you now about your early years, yourjizmily, and your

chikihooa’ home. k that all right? If R assents: From when you wereborn until you left school, who was it you lived with?

Both parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Probe fully One parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and code ~ that apply, One step-parent and parent .. . . . . . . . . . . .with R’s age.

A step-parent only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adopted parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grandparent(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foster parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

None of these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 Have you got any brothers or sisters?

No. of brothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Probe brothers, or No. of sisters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .half-brothers? No. of half-brothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. of half-sisters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. of step/adopted brothers . . . . . . . . .

No. of step/adopted sisters . . . . . . . . . . . .

Only child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) How many of your brothers and sisters are older than you?

Reply: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So you’re the ( ) child of the family? Code

41 What age were you at your last birthday?

Respondent’s age now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 Do you know what age your mother was at her last birthday?

(Birth mother) Mother’s age now (write) I

NR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compute Mother’s age when R born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

I

I

I

I

1

I

99

I

I

99

99

I

—40

—a)

41

41

1- 42

F

43

43 Up to the time you started school, who looked after you?

Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

44 Up to the age of 16, were you ever taken into care, or did you

spend time in a borstal, an approved school, or a youngoffender unit?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Why was that? [1 Criminal offence, 2 Family problems,

3 Truancy, 4 Beyond parental control, 5 Other, 6 DK.I Code

45 Can you tell me about where you lived when you were abouteIeven - your last year at junior school? Was it a house, or a flat,or what? (Use the photographs if necessary.)

Write respondent’s choice or description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code

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

Running prompt

CSX!e

a)

b)

c)

Total . ..1...

Daily newpaper 1

N o &Ily paper 2

Books on a shelf 1

No books on a shelf 2

a television set? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a fridge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a telephone? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a washing machine? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a daiIy newspaper? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a car? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a dishwasher? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

central heating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a stereo or hi-fi? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a bookshelf with books in it? . . . . . . . . . . .

a garden?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

wall-to-wall-carpets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

1

2

1

2

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

44

a)

45

45

46 “

—47

May we tilk about you now?when they are small children.

Everyone does things that are wrong

52 Did the grown-ups ever become angry if you did the wrongthing accidentally - like dropping something and breaking it, orlike losing something?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 Before you first went to school, how often did you do things thatyou knew were naughty?

Quite often . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Write examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code

54 Did anything happen to you when (your parents) found out youhad been naughty?

No parental reponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROBE Verbal (explanatory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code all that apply Verbal (angry) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corporal punishment (token) . . . . . . . . . .

Corporal punishment (harsh) . . . . . . . . . .

Deprivation (emotional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deprivation (material) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code

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

PROBE for erratic or Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .inconsistent punishment

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

F 53

.55

55

}

56

May we move@urard in time, to when you were a teenager - say,about @rteen o~fifieen years old?

56 When you went out, did (your parents) tell you what time theywanted you to be home again?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 If you came back late, what happened then?

Kept indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Told off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hit or given a good hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nothing at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Locked out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Always in on time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58 Did you ever think about running away from home?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Did circumstances ever cause you to run away?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 Back to your (parents). Did (they) get any academic qualifications?The sort of things I mean are

Father

[

Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Diploma (eg SIN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

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

Code highest GCSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

City & Guilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

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

DK/ Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

20

1

2

1

23456

1

2

1

2

I

1 58

a)

59

h

59

i’iother

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

60

1 expect you ‘ve heard that, by the age of thirty, about one man in three has been

convicted of a criminal oflence of one kind or another.

60 Have (your parents) or any other members of your family everbeen convicted of an offence?

Probe if necessary Do you think they have?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 Which members of your family have been convicted?

Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code all that Step-parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

apply Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Brother/Sister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uncle/Aunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cousin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

a) Have any of these served time?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

. . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Ask or record

Which members?

Encircle in grid aboveI

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

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

1

2

8

(b)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

61

t62

a)

b)

62

62

21

—..

Many people suffmj+om clinical dspresswn at some time in their lives.

62 Has any member of your family ever been clinically depressed? Imean rmy depressed, for days or weeks at a time.Probe for medical Yes and sought medical attention . . .attention or hospitaltreatment

Yes but no medical attention . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

a) Which member(s)? Write: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ib) How did this affect you? Write: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c) Before you came to prison, did you yourself ever get clinicallydepressed?

Probe Yes and sought medical attention . . .

Yes but no medical attention . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

}

a)

c)

b)

c)

1

2

3

63

63 One of the things that can depress people is frequent change of address.

Up to the time you left school, did (your family) always live atthe same address?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 When you changed your address, did you also change from oneschool to another?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can you tell me how many different schools you went to?

a) Junio~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Senior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

1

2

65

64

a)&b)

65

22

CHECK (Parents?)

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

and code as

Newspapers, magazines, or other ephemera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Books for recreation fiction, hobbies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Books for further study or related to his work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 When you were a boy, did you ever see your (mother) readingto herself?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

and code as 65

67 When you were a boy, did anyone ever read to you ?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68 Who was it who read to you?

Code all that apply Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

but give priority to Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mother on Transfer Sister/ brother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sheet Other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a)

66

66

a)

67

1

2

1

2

3

4

67

68

70

I 69

23

69 Did you like being read to?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It depended on (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Code any Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

that apply. Step-parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

prompt. Brother/Sister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uncle/Aunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cousin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

No-one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enter Codes

REPEAT for a) Writing and b) Spelling.

Read

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

ADD details where more than one in any category.

CODE Parent 1, Sibling 2, Other 3 -in order of priority.

a)

Write

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

1

2

3

1

2

8

b)

H

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

F 71

F 71

G O T O R A V E N ’ S S P M

24

S C O R E S H E E T fw S H O R T E R R A V E N SpM (YOI)

II

I

~

I

I

I

I

,

L

Time discreetly by w“stuwtch

Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finish: . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Time in minutes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ET I T E M S I T E M N U M B E R S T

A 7 1 2 4 5 7 9 11

IB 61!

2 4 5 7 9 12 II I I I I I i I r I I

Cl 6 III 131 151 171 191 1111 I I8

i

E 5 2 4 5 8 12

6 2 1 6 5

II30 T O T A LI I

PART 4May we tilk now about your education, starting with the time you

were going to junior school?

72 Did you ever have any problems reading what the teacher wroteon the blackboard?

Mosfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 Did you ever have any difficulty in hearing what the teacherswere saying?

Mostly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 Were you often absent from school for any reason that you

couldn’t help (not playing truant)?Confirm M school Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code

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

Yes (some) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76 How did you mostly spend your playtimes?

Code first to apply On my own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With other children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

3

8

1

2

8

73

1,

74—

1-

a)

75

79

—76

a)

—77

1

a) Why was that?

Probe Own choice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peer rejection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peer indifference? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other (specify)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 All children get teased by other children. They are called names to

embarrass them; or they are told things that aren ‘t true to see zfthey

believe them. What things can you remember being teased about?Write response

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code Physical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mamerisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78 Bullying is also quite common in schools. Did other children everbully you? (Physical pain that you didn’t deserve, or things thatbelonged to you being damaged or broken or stolen, forexample?)

.-.Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ia) Have you any idea why they btied YOU? Write response

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code Physical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mamerisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1 77

78

a)

t

79

1

79

27

79 Did you ever feel that you were diflment from most otherchildren?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) In what way? (Summarise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Prompt if necessary Often ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Never or almost never? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Code

82 Everybody gets hurt ifthey’re in a Jight. Were you ever hurtseriously in a fight at your junior school?Probe: So seriously that Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .you had to be taken to thedoctor or to hospital? No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 Did you yoursel~ever seriously hurt another boy in a fight whileyou were at junior school?

Prob= So seriously that Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .they had to be taken to thedoctor or to hospital? No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

a)

81

I

8 1

a)

84

.

t

83

t84

I

I

I

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

Code

highest

had to have stitches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

had to have your armor your leg in plaster? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

hurt your head and blacked out? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NONE of the aboveCHECK each option: And that happened while youwere still at junior school?

IF 3 has been coded, ask

a) How long were you unconscious?

Less than half an hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Between half an hour and six hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Over six but less than twenty-four hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

More than twenty-four hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can you tell me about the teachers at your junior school?

85 Were there any teachers that you liked very much?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Why did you like them?

86 Were there any teachers that you strongly disliked?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Why was that?

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

Infrequent (e.g. once a year or less)

Frequent (e.g. once a term or more)

Don’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

85

85

a)

85

85—

a)

86

86

—a)

—

88

.—

91 Did you have any problems with arithmetic? (Clarify if neededdoing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division)

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Do you think that was fair? Write response

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Code

Check Parents?93 Did (your parents) take an interest in how you got on at your

junior school?Prompt as necessary Yes, a lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quite interested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not very much interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No interest at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94 Did they ever help you with your schoolwork?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 Did they want you to do better than you knew you could do?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Code

1

2

1

2

—

1

2

3

4

1

2

1

2

) 92

F a)

93

93

I 94

a)

96

96

31

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

96 How about (your brother/s and sister/ s): how well did they geton at school?Prompt as necessary Better than me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

About the same as me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not as well as me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N/A .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Frequently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not very often . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Were you ever

smacked? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

suspended? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

neither of those? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Were you ever moved to another junior school because ofyour behaviour?

Yes . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Probe as necessary Yes, more than once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, but only once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) How old were you when (or the first time) this happened?

Code 1 Tenor under, 2 Eleven or twelve,

3 Thirteen or fourteen, 4 Fifteen or sixteen

b) Were any of yourji-iends ever in trouble with the police? Yes . .

No/DK . . . .

1

2

3

9

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

1 97

t

a)

98

1

b)

I 98

—a)

b)

b)

—99

32

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

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

Now and then . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Prompt as necessary Very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fairly well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not as well as I should have done . .

Not very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101 Do you think you would be in here now if you had done well atschool?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

8

— 100

WURS

101

t

a)

WURS

WURS

G O T OW E N D E R U T A H R A T I N G S C A L E (SHORT V E R S I O N)

&

FRANCESCA HAPPJ?S ST R A N G E S T O R I E S

33

W(A7S SCORE SHEET

Please classijj each cm-d, as there will be further analyses.

34

S T R A N G E S T O R I E S S C O R E S H E E T

A Jay’s Birthday PresentIs it true, what Jay said? Yes

NoWhy did he say that to his friend? Transcribe:

Score out of thre[B Del’s Dinner

Is it true, what Deh mother said? YesNo

Why did Del’s mother say that? Transm”be:

Score out of thretc The Hidden Tanks

Is it true, what the prisoner said? YesNo

Where will the Red army look for the Blue army’s tanks?By the sei

In the mountain!Why did the prisoner say what he said? Transcribe

Score out of thref

D Jason Does-It-HimselfWhat does Jason’s father mean? Does he mean Jason isstupid or clever?

Cleve]Stupid

What does Jason’s brother mean? Does he mean Jason isclever or stupid?

Cleve]Stupic

E Darren Stays the NightWhat did Mandy’s mum mean when she asked Darren ifhe was sure he wanted to stay?

She didn’t want hlm to stay, or didn’t think he should stayOther

Did Mandy’s dad think Darren was bright or not? Transm”be

Score one or nil

Total Score35

0

1

0

1

20

20

0

1

0

1

40

Intension~l sentenc(?s 5 c o R E s H E E T

1 If Gerry helps Jim, who does the helping?GerryJimNR/DK

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

The boyThe old womanNR/DK

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

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

A young manA girlAn artistNR/DK

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

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

7 if a girl watching a photographer taking a picture of an Olympichurdler runs away, who runs away?

The girlThe photographerThe hurdlerNR/DK

NUMBER OF T] MES SCORING 1

128

—

128

—

128

—

1

238

—

128

.

128

—

1238

36

t

PART 5102 When I asked you about acadents a few minutes ago, I didn’t

cover all the possibilities. Accidents involving motor vehicles arequite common. Have you ever been involved in a motoraccident? [Probe if necessary: rolled or shunted, ran out of road,hit a pedestrian or another vehicle?]

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103 How many times have you been involved in a motor accident?

Write estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Codea) Was that as a passenger or as the driver?

Code either or both Passenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) Were you ever the driver responsible for the accident?Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I 104 Have you ever been had up for speeding?Confirm fine or Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .endorsement

No (but drives) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Does not drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 Since your sixteenth birthday, have you ever been knocked out?Or hurt your head at work, in a game, in a road accident, or in afight? Or have you had a stroke? [Code ‘Yes’ for possible closedhead injury]

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

103

104

a)

104

b)

E104

t

105

a)

106

a) How long were you unconscious?

Less than half anhour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Between half an hour and six hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Over six but less than twenty-four hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

More than twenty-four hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107 Are there any particular groups or types of prisoner who youfeel are particularly threatening or dangerous to you personally?

Do NOT prompt unbalanced/ mental cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

sentenced prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

remand prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the ones who think they run theprison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

black/ethnic minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

racists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

all of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

none of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108 Do you go to any educational or training classes in this YO1?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Only just arrived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) What classes are these? Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code

38

1

2

3

4

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

106—

107

108

108

a)

109

b)

110

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

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110 In the last two weeks, have you been to the Library here?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

(If ‘Yes’, write details below. If ‘No’, thank interviewee andconclude Interview. THEN complete Post-Interview Checklist.)

1

2

8

1

2

a)

110

110

ARC

P-I C

.

Timeended . . . . . . . . . . .

39

POST-INTERVIEW CHECKLIST - INTERVIEWER COMPLETION

112 Was the respondent, physically speaking

strikingly good-looking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

moderately good-looking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ordinary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

rather unattractive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

definitely unattractive or ugly? . . . . . . .

113 Was the respondent

friendly, co-operative? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

willing, passive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unwillin~ but compliant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unwillin& grudgingly compliant . . . .

restless, fidgety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114 Did the respondent appear to enjoy the session?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unclear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 Did the respondent appear to find the session stressful?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unclear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

116 Was it possible to complete the tests and interview?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No: some parts refused by R . . . . . . . . . . .

No; some parts abandoned by 1 . . . . . .

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

. .

40

I

117 How communicative was the respondent?

monosyllabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

little spontaneous comment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

moderate spontaneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

talkative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

excessively talkative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118 Did the respondent have a speech impediment?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Describe

Code

119 How long did the session last?

Code in minutes E

120 What was the tone of the session?warm, enjoyable, relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

quite warm, enjoyable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

reserved, tense, slightly unpleasant

very awkward or unpleasant . . . . . . . . . . .

121 Did the respondent !/

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

speak melodiously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

speak pedantim~ly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

maintain good eye contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

use gestures when speaking . . . . . . . . . . . ..E

Code

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

- r

1

2

3

4

5

a)

41

122 Did the respondent find it hard to understand any of thequestions?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123 Did the respondent speak

standard mother-tongue English? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

standard mother-tongue English with an accent? . . . . . . . . . . .

standard acquired English? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

standard acquired English with an accent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

non-standard mother-tongue English? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

non-standard acquired English? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

124 What ethnic group did he (appear to) belong to?

Afro-Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Caucasian - northern European . . . . . .

Caucasian - southern European . . . . . .

Underline Indian/Pakistani/ Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specify Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 What height did he appear to be?

Short (under 5’ 7“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medium (5’ S“to5’10”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tall (5’ 11“ to 6’ 1“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Very tall (6’ 2“ or over) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

Please - the Interviewee’s Prison Number here:

42

~

1nten7iewer’s Notes

)

.

1 43

M I C H A E L R I C E . D A R W I N C O L L E G E . CA MB RiDGE CB3 9EU - E N G L A N D

F E B R U A R Y 1 9 9 8

375

Author Recognition Checklist

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

Name 4 Name 4Chinua ACHEBE Len DEIGHTONDouglas ADAMS John DENNYCaspar ADDYMAN Colin DEXTERG. Scott AIKENS Philip K. DICKAbayomi ALAWODE A. Conan DOYLEBrian ALDISS Markus ENGELHARDIsaac ASIMOV David P. FARRINGTONDavid ATTENBOROUGH Guy FITHENAlex BAER Ian FLEMINGIain BANKS Colin FORBESH. E. BATES Frederick FORSYTHNick BAYLIS Dick FRANCISHarry BHADESHIA Loraine GELSTHORPEAlan BLACKWELL Winston GRAHAMA. E. BOTTOMS Zane GREYBen BOWLING Nikolaus GRIGORIEFFWilliam BOYD Arthur HAILEYEdward CHRISTOW Robert HARRISArthur C. CLARKE Max HASTINGSAl CODY Frank HERBERTPatricia CONNELL James HERBERTShirley CONRAN Leo HOWESarah CUNDY Hammond INNESRoald DAHL P. D. JAMESHenderson DALRYMPLE Jared JONES

375

Name 4 Name 4Garrison KEILLOR Richard QUESNELJonathan KELLERMAN Leon RADZINOWICZDean KOONTZ Harry RENWICKStilianos KOUNDOUROS Sue REXGeorge KUO David ROBBINSCarlo LAING Harold ROBBINSJohn LE CARRE Gerry ROSEElmore LEONARD Axel SANDVIGGeoffrey LLOYD Wilbur SMITHRichard MABEY Tim SOLLICKEd MCBAIN Sean SWEENYG. MACDONALD FRASER Leslie THOMASAlistair MACLEAN Simon TILBURYNigel MCNAIR SCOTT Peter TINNISWOODThomas MANKE J. R. R. TOLKIENJohn MANUEL Thomas TRYONMichael MOORCOCK Nigel WALKERJason MOORE Stephen D. WANTGrant MUIR Keith WATERHOUSERua MURRAY H. G. WELLSDavid NOBBS Morris WESTBen OKRI D. J. WESTJames OLESON Chester WHITEJ.-H. PARK Ben WOODLEYTerry PRATCHETT Davin YAP

Thank you very much for completing the checklist. Michael Rice

378

Strange Storiesm

Jay’s Birthday Present

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

Is it true, what Jay said? Yes 0No 1

Why did he say that to his friend? Transcribe:

Score out of threeDel’s Dinner

Del's mother had spent a long time cooking his favouritemeal: steak and chips. But when she brought it in to theroom, he was watching television, and he didn’t even evenlook up or say thank you. Del's mother was cross andsaid, ‘Well that’s very nice isn’t it! That’s what I callpoliteness!’

Is it true, what Del’s mother said? Yes 0No 1

Why did Del’s mother say that? Transcribe:

Score out of three

378

The Hidden Tanks

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

Is it true, what the prisoner said? Yes 2No 0

Where will the Red army look for the Blue army’s tanks?By the sea 2

In the mountains 0Why did the prisoner say what he said? Transcribe:

Score out of threeJason Does-It-Himself

Jason is helping his father to paint a cupboard door. Dadtells him to put some white spirit on the door. But stupidJason doesn't wipe the white spirit on with a rag - he justputs the bottle on top of the door! When Dad comes backand sees what Jason has done, he says:

‘Your head must be made of wood!’

Just then, Jason’s brother comes in. He sees what Jason hasdone and says:

‘Brilliant brain, our Jason!’

/ . . . . .

378

What does Jason’s father mean? Does he mean Jason isstupid or clever?

Clever 0Stupid 1

What does Jason’s brother mean? Does he mean Jason isclever or stupid?

Clever 0Stupid 1

Darren Stays the Night

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

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

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

What did Mandy’s mum mean when she asked Darren ifhe was sure he wanted to stay?

She didn’t want him to stay, or didn’t think he should stay 4Other 0

Did Mandy’s dad think Darren was bright or not? Transcribe

Score one or nil

Total Score

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

- - - - - - 0 +

RAPID

NAMING

>=42 35-41 33-34 24-32 <=23

ONE MINUTE

READING

0-32 33-79 80-86 87-109 >=110

POSTURAL

STABILITY

16-24 10-15 6-9 1-5 0

PHONEMIC

SEGMENTATION

0-7 8-9 10 11-12 13

TWO MINUTE

SPELLING

0-16 17-25 26-27 28-31 >=32

BACKWARDS

SPAN

0-2 3 4 5-7 >=8

NONSENSE

PASSAGE

0-46 47-63 64-72 73-86 >=87

ONE MINUTE

WRITING

016 17-19 20-25 26-32 >=33

VERBAL

FLUENCY

0-8 9-11 12-13 14-18 >=19

SEMANTIC

FLUENCY

0-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 >=20

SCORING

- - - scores3- - scores2- scores1

AT RISK QUOTIENT

Sum the scores and divide by 10.

REFERRAL THRESHOLD

0.7

Wender Utah Rating Scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?Just ask me if you get a card you're not sure about.I’ll hand them to you one at a time.

W E N D E R U T A H R A T I N G S C A L E - s e l e c t e d i t e m s P R I S O N R E A D I N G S U R V E Y Date.....|....|.... Code....|....|....||....|....|....

As a child, I (was or had):

Not at all likeme, or only very

slightly.

Quite like me. Very much likeme.

1 Active, restless, always on the go

2 Concentration problems, was easily distracted

3 Anxious, worried

4 In trouble with authorities, in trouble at school

5 Nervous, fidgety

6 Inattentive, daydreaming

7 Hot- or short-tempered, with a low boiling-point8 Trouble seeing things from somebody else's

point of view

9 Temper outbursts, tantrums

10 Trouble finishing things I had started

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

12 Leader, bossy (FOIL)

13 Teased other children14 Dissatisfied with life, didn't get a kick out of

things

15 Disobedient to parents, rebellious, defiant

16 Irritable

17 Sloppy, disorganised

18 Ran away from home

19 Angry

20 Well-organised, tidy, neat (FOIL)

21 Tended to be immature

22 Lost control of myself

23 Felt guilty or regretful