Identifying incarcerated individuals with poor adaptive functioning (AF) is critical to ensuring their safety and preserving their legal rights, particularly when a diagnosis of intellectual disability (ID) is considered. This study examined the utility of the Problems in Everyday Living Test (PEDL) to identify incarcerated individuals with deficits in AF who may warrant further assessment for ID. The sample consisted of 154 incarcerated adults housed in mental health units in a large urban jail. Latent class analysis supported a three-class model consistent with Impaired, Borderline, and Intact groups, which differed in the level of AF and other indicators of ID. A cutoff score of 13 in the PEDL was optimal to identify incarcerated individuals with deficits in AF, possible intellectual impairment, and a history of special education. Study findings provided preliminary support for using a 12-item modified version of the PEDL as a screening tool in correctional settings.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2016). Psychiatric services in correctional facilities (3rd ed.).
3.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014a). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
4.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014b). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes, 21, 1–22. https://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote21.pdf
5.
BeattyW. W.HamesK. A.BlancoC. R.WilliamsonS. J.WilbanksS. L.OlsonK. A. (1998). Correlates of coping style in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 4(5), 440–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859800400507
6.
BoccacciniM. T.KanL. Y.RufinoK. A.NolandR. M.Young-LundquistB. A.CanalesE. (2016). Correspondence between correctional staff and offender ratings of adaptive behavior. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1608–1615. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000333
7.
BolckA.CroonM.HagenaarsJ. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mph001
8.
BonnieR. J.GustafsonK. (2007). The challenges of implementing Atkins v. Virginia: How legislatures and courts can promote accurate assessments and adjudications of mental retardation in death penalty cases. University of Richmond Law Review, 41, 810–860. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol41/iss4/3
9.
BourasN.MartinG.LeeseM.VanstraelenM.HoltG.ThomasC.BoardmanJ. (2004). Schizophrenia-spectrum psychoses in people with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48(6), 548–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2004.00623.x
10.
CatalanoG.MasonJ.BrolanC. E.LoughnanS.HarleyD. (2020). Screening prisoners for cognitive impairment—Literature review. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behavior, 11(4), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-01-2020-0001
EndersC. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford.
15.
EveringtonC.OlleyJ. G. (2008). Implications of Atkins v. Virginia: Issues in defining and diagnosing mental retardation. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930801947278
16.
FisherC. B. (2013). Human rights and psychologists’ involvement in assessments related to death penalty cases. Ethics & Behavior, 23(1), 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.749761
17.
GreenspanS. (2008). Foolish action in adults with intellectual disabilities: The forgotten problem of risk-unawareness. In GliddenL. M. (Ed.), International review of research in intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 147–194). Elsevier.
18.
GreenspanS.SwitzkyH. N. (2006). Lessons from the Atkins decision for the next AAMR manual. In SwitzkyH. N.GreenspanS. (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving disability in the 21st century (Rev. ed., pp. 283–302). American Association on Mental Retardation.
19.
GreiffensteinM. F.BakerW. J.GolaT. (1994). Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 6(3), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.3.218
20.
GuilmetteT. J.SweetJ. J.HebbenN.KoltaiD.MahoneE. M.SpieglerB. J.StuckyK.WesterveldM., & Conference Participants. (2020). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1722244
21.
Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).
22.
HayesS. C. (2005). Diagnosing intellectual disability in a forensic sample: Gender and age effects on the relationship between cognitive and adaptive functioning. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 30(2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250500124968
23.
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology. (2010). Standards for psychology services in jails, prisons, correctional facilities, and agencies (3rd ed.). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(7), 749–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810368253
24.
KennedyH. G.O’NeillC.FlynnG.GillP.DavorenM. (2013). Dangerousness Understanding, Recovery and Urgency Manual (the DUNDRUM quartet) V1. 0. 26 (01/08/13): Four structured professional judgement instruments for admission triage, urgency, treatment completion and recovery assessments. Trinity College Dublin.
25.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline for selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
26.
LanzaS. T.TanX.BrayB. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742377
27.
LawL. L.BarnettF.GrayM. A.YauM. K.SiuA. M. (2014). Translation and validation of Chinese version of the Problems in Everyday Living (PEDL) test in patients with mild cognitive impairment. International Psychogeriatrics, 26(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213001889
28.
LeckeyG. S.BeattyW. W. (2002). Predicting functional performance by patients with Alzheimer’s disease using the Problems in Everyday Living (PEDL) Test: A preliminary study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617701020057
29.
MasynK. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In LittleT. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Vol. 2. Statistical analysis (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0025
30.
McBrienJ. (2003). The intellectually disabled offender: Methodological problems in identification. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00153.x
31.
MienaltowskiA. (2011). Everyday problem solving across the adult life span: Solution diversity and efficacy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06207.x
32.
Moore v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2407 (2016).
33.
MossmanD. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.783
34.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
35.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2018). Standards for health services in jails. National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
NixonM.TrounsonJ. S. (2017). Effective management of inmates with borderline intellectual disability in prison. Advancing Corrections Journal, 3, 156–165. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/438193
38.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural, Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
39.
Nylund-GibsonK.ChoiA. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176
40.
O’ConnellM. J.GarmoeW.GoldsteinN. E. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2965-y
41.
OwenM. J.O’DonovanM. C. (2017). Schizophrenia and the neurodevelopmental continuum: Evidence from genomics. World Psychiatry, 16(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20440
RossG. E.HockenK.AutyJ. M. (2020). The reliability and validity of the Adaptive Functioning Assessment Tool in UK custodial settings. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 24(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518762885
44.
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S. D. Tex. 1980).
45.
RybaN. L.ZapfP. A. (2011). The Influence of psychiatric symptoms and cognitive abilities on competence-related abilities. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.550982
46.
SalekinK. L.DoaneB. M. (2009). Malingering intellectual disability: The value of available measures and methods. Applied Neuropsychology, 16(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280902864485
47.
SalekinK. L.NealT.HedgeK. A. (2018). Validity, interrater reliability, and measures of adaptive behavior: Concerns regarding the probative versus prejudicial value. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000150
48.
SalekinK. L.OlleyJ. G.HedgeK. A. (2010). Offenders with intellectual disability: Characteristics, prevalence, and issues in forensic assessment. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315861003695769
49.
SchalockR. L.Borthwick-DuffyS. A.BradleyV. J.BuntinxW. H. E.CoulterD. L.CraigE. M.. . .YeagerM. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
50.
SchatzS. J. (2018). Interrogated with intellectual disabilities: The risks of false confession. Stanford Law Review, 70, 643–690.
51.
ScheyettA.VaughnJ.TaylorM.ParishS. (2009). Are we there yet? Screening processes for intellectual and developmental disabilities in jail settings. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1352/2009.47:13-23
52.
SheffieldJ. M.KarcherN. R.BarchD. M. (2018). Cognitive deficits in psychotic disorders: A lifespan perspective. Neuropsychology Review, 28(4), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-9388-2
53.
SmithL. (2014). Improving the assessment of intellectual disability (ID) within the UK prison service (who define ID using an IQ below 80) (Publication No. 27767173) [Doctoral Dissertation, Nottingham Tent University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
TasséM. J. (2009). Adaptive behavior assessment and the diagnosis of mental retardation in capital cases. Applied Neuropsychology, 16(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280902864451
56.
TombaughT. N. (1996). TOMM: Test of memory malingering. Multi-Health Systems.
57.
VerheijenV. B.SegerenM. W.FassaertT.GrimbergenC. (2022). Intellectual disability among violent repeat offenders and its relation with psychopathology and self-sufficiency. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 21(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1928339
WoodberryK. A.GiulianoA. J.SeidmanL. J. (2008). Premorbid IQ in schizophrenia: A meta-analytic review. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(5), 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07081242
62.
YoungB.BoccacciniM. T.ConroyM. A.LawsonK. (2007). Four practical and conceptual assessment issues that evaluators should address in capital case mental retardation evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.2.169
63.
Young-LundquistB. A.BoccacciniM. T.SimplerA. (2012). Are self-report measures of adaptive functioning appropriate for those high in psychopathic traits?Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30(6), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2039
64.
ZablotskyB.BlackL. I.BlumbergS. J. (2017). Estimated prevalence of children with diagnosed developmental disabilities in the United States, 2014-2016. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, 291, 1–8. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db291.pdf
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
