COURTS
2.1 The study was conducted in four local courts in New South Wales - Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Liverpool and Newtown. These courts were selected in consultation with experienced lawyers who were familiar with the environment of each court, and its catchment area. It was considered that these courts would be as representative as possible of New South Wales local courts. Both Liverpool and Newtown are suburban courts which draw from a wide socio-economic and ethnic population. Dubbo and Wagga were included because they are busy and diverse country courts.
2.2 The magistrates scheduled to sit during the time of the study, and the clerks of the court were contacted in advance and informed about the purpose and methodology of the research. A copy of a letter from the Chief Magistrate of the New South Wales Local Courts, Mr Ian Pike, supporting the study, was forwarded to magistrates and clerks in order to inform them further about the aims and value of the study.
2.3 Where possible, space for researchers was provided in sections of the foyer of the courthouse and/or in legal profession rooms or unused court rooms, although this proved to be a difficulty. Liverpool Court was undergoing renovations which limited space in the foyer. At Wagga the legal profession room was not available to the researchers to enable the conduct of the verbal section of the survey, although arrangements had been made for the room to be used for that purpose.
RESEARCH OFFICERS
2.4 Research officers were recruited via local contacts (such as Charles Sturt University, Wagga Campus; and Intellectual Disability services in Dubbo) and the University of Sydney Student Employment Services. The requirements were that research officers be mature individuals with experience and training in the health or human behaviour fields, experience with intellectual disability, and skill in counselling and communication.
2.5 Researchers recruited for the two courts in the Sydney Metropolitan Area attended a training workshop which covered all aspects of the conduct of the field research.
2.6 All research officers received comprehensive research kits which explained the project and contained detailed instructions, protocols, contact numbers for the chief investigator, marking sheets, copies of the letter from Mr Pike, identification posters for the walls of the courthouse, and the equipment (including survey booklets and pencils) required for the field work.
2.7 The research teams in Wagga and Dubbo were not trained by the chief investigator in person, although extensive telephone contact took place, supplemented by written instructions and a manual of procedures. Some difficulties occurred in the Wagga and Dubbo courthouses as mentioned above. Lack of private space for conducting confidential interviews in Wagga precluded the administration of a verbal section of the survey. In Dubbo, there were unexpectedly low rates of attendance at court, and participation in the study. The research teams did not draw the difficulties to the attention of the chief investigator until after the study period concluded, and so unfortunately there was no opportunity to attempt to remedy the difficulties. One consequence was that none of the subjects attending Wagga Court received the Mini-Mental State Examination (see below for details). Also, the numbers surveyed at Dubbo Court fell far short of what was anticipated.
2.8 At least two research officers were present at any time in every courthouse. One usually approached persons arriving for court appearances, and directed them to the other researcher who administered the survey instrument. Roles varied, however, with the numbers of people arriving at various times. Both persons liaised with court officers in order to locate persons due to appear.
THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2.9 The survey consisted of four parts (see Appendix A):
(a) Background and demographic information.
(b) Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) Matrices Section.
(c) Mini-Mental State Examination (abbreviated).
(d) Research officers’ observations of and comments about the subjects.
Whilst Sections (a), (c) and (d) are reproduced in Appendix A, for copyright purposes the K-BIT is not reproduced. A brief description of the sections, and their purpose is presented here.
(a) Background information
2.10 This section sought information about the subjects’ sex, age, Aboriginal or Islander background, place of birth, school history (including attendance at a special class or school), employment, receipt of a pension or benefit currently or previously, current charge(s), most serious charge, other charges, other reasons for attending court on this day, prior charges, and availability of a solicitor.
2.11 The subject’s name and the name and address of the solicitor were optional. Subjects were informed that if the test showed any unusual results, their solicitor would be informed and could opt to take further steps - this was the only reason for seeking the solicitor’s details.
2.12 Subjects were told that if necessary they could obtain assistance (eg, from family or support persons) to complete this section of the instrument, but could not be assisted with the other sections.
(b) Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) - Matrices Section
2.13 The K-BIT is a brief, individually administered measure of the verbal and non-verbal intelligence of a wide range of children, adolescents, and adults. It may be used for individuals aged between four and 90 years. The test is simple to administer and may be given by non-psychologists, provided the administrators have appropriate background skills and training. The full test takes approximately 15 to 30 minutes to administer, and is composed of two subtests: Vocabulary (including expressive vocabulary, and definitions) and Matrices. Vocabulary measures verbal crystallised thinking, based on school-related skills. Matrices measures non-verbal skills and the ability to solve new problems (fluid thinking) by assessing an individual’s ability to perceive relationships and complete analogies. All matrices items involve pictures or abstract designs rather than words.1
2.14 Age-based standard scores (SS) having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 are provided for the vocabulary and matrices sections, as well as an overall score known as the K-BIT Composite. These scores are similar to IQ scores, and were normed in parallel with numerous intelligence and achievement tests, permitting direct comparisons with global scores earned by an individual on the Wechsler Adult and Child Intelligence Scales, for example.
2.15 The K-BIT is not intended to substitute for a comprehensive measure of an individual’s intelligence, and does not possess the same comprehensive attributes for diagnosis and placement as would be possible using multi-test batteries. One of the purposes of the K-BIT is estimating the intelligence of a large number of people, eg, prisoners, patients in a hospital, or juvenile delinquents. Further details concerning reliability and validity may be obtained from the Manual.2
2.16 A study of the relationship between the K-BIT and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R), using a sample of 35 students found a significant correlation between the K-BIT composite score and the WISC-R full scale IQ score (r=0.81). The mean scores differed significantly with the K-BIT mean being 6.2 points lower. The K-BIT matrices had a significant correlation of 0.72 with the full scale IQ, and the matrices mean was 1.7 points below the WISC-R full scale IQ mean, not a significant difference.3
2.17 The difference between the K-BIT and the WISC-R scores was not significant (difference = 0.45) when administered to a juvenile delinquent population, however.4
2.18 Although the comparison test batteries by Wechsler (the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised (WAIS-R), and the WISC-R) are possibly the most widely accepted tests for the evaluation of intelligence, questions have been raised about the reliability of the WAIS-R among persons with mild intellectual disability. Some studies have found that the WAIS-R tends to overestimate ability at the mild to borderline levels of intelligence, by an average of 13 points when compared to the pre-revision WISC.5 Other studies hold that the discrepancy is negligible,6 whereas a further study indicated that the WAIS-R “demotes” some people from low average to borderline, and “promotes” some people from moderate to mild levels of intellectual disability.7
2.19 In summary, there is high correlation between the results of the K-BIT and other well-known intelligence tests, with perhaps a tendency on the part of the K-BIT to be a few points lower, although the difference is less marked on non-verbal sections of the respective tests.
2.20 The Matrices section only of the K-BIT was used in this study, for a number of important reasons. It is untimed. It is not dependent upon verbal skills or school-related learning, but rather demands non-verbal reasoning and flexibility in applying a problem-solving strategy. It tests fluid thinking, that is, the ability to be adaptable and flexible when encountering novel problem-solving situations. Because it is non-verbal, it can be administered to individuals of non-English speaking background, those from a different cultural background, and hearing-impaired, illiterate, dyslexic, and speech or language disabled individuals. It is a well-normed, reliable and valid test and the SS it yields is a concept readily understood by most professionals.
2.21 There was no differentiation made in the presentation of results for SS above 100 (eg, between 100-109, 110-120 etc) because high intellectual ability is not germane to this study, and also because the test is less reliable at high levels.
(c) Mini-Mental State Examination, Abbreviated (MSE)
2.22 The Mini-Mental State Examination is frequently used as a screening device in psychiatric illness or dementias.8 It has several sections - Orientation, Registration, Attention and Calculation, Recall, Language, and Visual-Motor Integrity. Owing to privacy difficulties in the courthouses, the Recall section was not administered. In the Language section only the three-stage command was used from the Language section, and Visual-Motor Integrity was omitted. Both Attention and Calculation options were administered, that is, serial sevens (subtracting seven from 100, then seven from the answer, and so forth), and spelling the word “world” backwards.
2.23 The MSE is usually scored out of 30, with a score of 25+ being regarded as normal and a score of 20 or less indicated moderate to severe impairment. With the abbreviations described above, the total score was reduced to 26, and through pro-rating it was considered that a score of 21 or less would indicate possible abnormality.
(d) Interviewer’s notes
2.24 Interviewers recorded whether, in their opinion, the subject appeared to be intellectually disabled (ID), non-English speaking background (NESB), mentally ill (MI), or affected by drugs and/or alcohol (D/A). They also recorded any other unusual or notable characteristics, including the use of an interpreter, or the person’s level of anxiety.
THE SAMPLE
2.25 The aim of the study was to attempt to undertake a time sample of persons presenting to the four magistrates’ courts during a given time frame, notably seven working days commencing September 1992 and concluding in October 1992.
2.26 It was predicted that not all persons listed for court appearances on a given day would co-operate, and this proved to be so, despite enormous help from court officers and magistrates. Participation in the study was voluntary, as was provision of the participant’s name or the name of their solicitor. Participants were informed that they were free to withdraw from the study at any point. The confidentiality of the data was emphasised to participants.
2.27 Researchers were instructed to collect information about the numbers of persons scheduled to appear, the types of offences, and any other information which could be obtained from court lists, court officers, and other sources. These data were intended to provide comparative information about non-participators. These comparative base-line data proved impossible to collect with any accuracy, however. Researchers found the following difficulties:
(a) a number of “appearances” would be scheduled, but it would emerge that it was the same person appearing on several different charges;
(b) some persons listed for appearance did not in fact appear - either their solicitor appeared in their matter, or nobody turned up for that matter at all;
(c) a number of persons who were not listed for appearances nevertheless attended court and their matter was “heard” or part-heard in court - the researchers found it impossible to predict or gather any information about these seemingly un-notified appearances.
Unfortunately, therefore, the representativeness or otherwise of the sample could not be determined except through comparison with more global statistics about New South Wales magistrates court appearances (see Chapter 3).
DATA ANALYSES
2.28 Completed survey instruments were returned to the Department of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine at the University of Sydney. The scoring performed by the field researchers was checked to ensure accuracy, reliability and validity. The surveys were coded according to court and date. No identifying data for any individual was used in any of the data analyses. The chief investigator informed solicitors if there appeared to be any need for follow-up or further expert assessment, where solicitors’ names were provided. This was in accordance with the agreement made with the subjects at the time of participation. Identifying data were then removed from the forms, in accordance with ethical guidelines.
2.29 Data were analysed on personal computers using Paradox client data base and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
FOOTNOTES
1. A S Kaufman and N L Kaufman Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test Manual (American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, Minnesota, 1990).
2. Kaufman and Kaufman (1990).
3. P N Prewett “The relationship between the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) and the WISC-R with referred students” Psychology in the Schools 1992; 29:25-27.
4. Prewett (1992).
5. I L Zimmerman, J Covin, J M Woo-Sam, H Lotz and N Bley “A Longitudinal Comparison of the WISC-R and WAIS-R”, paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention (Toronto, 1984).
6. J J McGee and F J Menolascino “The Evaluation of Defendants with Mental Retardation in the Criminal Justice System” in R W Conley, R Luckasson and G N Bouthilet (eds) The Criminal Justice System and Mental Retardation. Defendants and Victims (Paul H Brookes, Baltimore, 1992) 55-78.
7. J J Goldman “Differential WAIS/WAIS-R IQ discrepancies among institutionalized mentally retarded persons” Mental Retardation 1987; 91 (6):633-635.
8. M F Folstein, S E Folstein and P R McHugh “Mini-Mental State Method for Grading the Cognitive State of Patients for the Clinician” J Psychiatric Research 1975; 12:189-198.
