情绪问题和智力残疾:比较有和没有法医介入的群体

IF 0.5 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Rachel Craven, Lyn Shelton
{"title":"情绪问题和智力残疾:比较有和没有法医介入的群体","authors":"Rachel Craven, Lyn Shelton","doi":"10.1108/jidob-05-2020-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) are known to experience increased emotional and behavioural concerns. The study aims to assess whether detained ID patients with a forensic history (IDPF) have increased difficulty managing their impulse control in comparison to detained ID patients without a forensic history (IDP). Using the externalising behaviour problems (EBP) subscale of the EPS, the study aims to compare the differences between the IDFP and IDP groups.,A total of 60 patients with ID detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (Revised 2007) were assessed using the behaviour rating scale of the EPS. The outcome scores of the EBP were used to examine any observed differences between the scores of forensically involved patients [n = 34] and those without a forensic history [n = 26]. It was hypothesised that patients with a forensic history would display higher scoring on externalised behavioural problems (EBP) than patients without such a history.,Non-parametric testing revealed that there were no significant differences in EBP scoring between the two sample groups. These findings indicate that, for patients in the present study, no differences were detected in the presentation of these two distinct groups. In fact, with the exception of the verbal aggression subscale of the EBP, the other three subscales (physical aggression, non-compliance and hyperactivity) show that actually the IDP group displayed the higher ranked means in these subscales when compared with the forensically involved group.,These results indicate possible increased treatment needs within the IDP group and question whether offending history is necessarily a reliable predictor of ongoing hostility and behavioural concerns within similar inpatient services.","PeriodicalId":43468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emotional problems and intellectual disability: comparing groups with and without forensic involvement\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Craven, Lyn Shelton\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jidob-05-2020-0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) are known to experience increased emotional and behavioural concerns. The study aims to assess whether detained ID patients with a forensic history (IDPF) have increased difficulty managing their impulse control in comparison to detained ID patients without a forensic history (IDP). Using the externalising behaviour problems (EBP) subscale of the EPS, the study aims to compare the differences between the IDFP and IDP groups.,A total of 60 patients with ID detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (Revised 2007) were assessed using the behaviour rating scale of the EPS. The outcome scores of the EBP were used to examine any observed differences between the scores of forensically involved patients [n = 34] and those without a forensic history [n = 26]. It was hypothesised that patients with a forensic history would display higher scoring on externalised behavioural problems (EBP) than patients without such a history.,Non-parametric testing revealed that there were no significant differences in EBP scoring between the two sample groups. These findings indicate that, for patients in the present study, no differences were detected in the presentation of these two distinct groups. In fact, with the exception of the verbal aggression subscale of the EBP, the other three subscales (physical aggression, non-compliance and hyperactivity) show that actually the IDP group displayed the higher ranked means in these subscales when compared with the forensically involved group.,These results indicate possible increased treatment needs within the IDP group and question whether offending history is necessarily a reliable predictor of ongoing hostility and behavioural concerns within similar inpatient services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jidob-05-2020-0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jidob-05-2020-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

众所周知,患有智力残疾(ID)的人会经历更多的情感和行为问题。本研究旨在评估与没有法医史的被拘留的ID患者(IDPF)相比,有法医史的被拘留ID患者(IDP)管理冲动控制的难度是否增加。利用外化行为问题量表(EBP),本研究旨在比较IDFP和IDP群体之间的差异。根据1983年《精神卫生法》(2007年修订版)拘留的60名身份证患者使用EPS行为评定量表进行了评估。EBP的结果评分用于检验法医介入患者[n = 34]与无法医史患者[n = 26]评分之间的差异。假设有法医史的患者在外部性行为问题(EBP)上的得分高于没有法医史的患者。非参数检验显示两组患者的EBP评分无显著差异。这些发现表明,对于本研究中的患者,在这两个不同组的表现中没有发现差异。事实上,除了EBP的言语攻击子量表外,其他三个子量表(身体攻击、不服从和多动)显示,与法医参与组相比,IDP组在这些子量表中表现出更高的排名。这些结果表明,国内流离失所者群体的治疗需求可能会增加,并质疑犯罪史是否一定是类似住院服务中持续敌意和行为担忧的可靠预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Emotional problems and intellectual disability: comparing groups with and without forensic involvement
Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) are known to experience increased emotional and behavioural concerns. The study aims to assess whether detained ID patients with a forensic history (IDPF) have increased difficulty managing their impulse control in comparison to detained ID patients without a forensic history (IDP). Using the externalising behaviour problems (EBP) subscale of the EPS, the study aims to compare the differences between the IDFP and IDP groups.,A total of 60 patients with ID detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (Revised 2007) were assessed using the behaviour rating scale of the EPS. The outcome scores of the EBP were used to examine any observed differences between the scores of forensically involved patients [n = 34] and those without a forensic history [n = 26]. It was hypothesised that patients with a forensic history would display higher scoring on externalised behavioural problems (EBP) than patients without such a history.,Non-parametric testing revealed that there were no significant differences in EBP scoring between the two sample groups. These findings indicate that, for patients in the present study, no differences were detected in the presentation of these two distinct groups. In fact, with the exception of the verbal aggression subscale of the EBP, the other three subscales (physical aggression, non-compliance and hyperactivity) show that actually the IDP group displayed the higher ranked means in these subscales when compared with the forensically involved group.,These results indicate possible increased treatment needs within the IDP group and question whether offending history is necessarily a reliable predictor of ongoing hostility and behavioural concerns within similar inpatient services.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信