Treatment readiness in violent offenders: The influence of cognitive factors on engagement in violence programs

University of Melbourne, Australia; University of South Australia, Australia; Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Nottingham University, United Kingdom
Aggression and Violent Behavior 01/2008; DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.04.003

ABSTRACT Advances in offender rehabilitation theory have led to the development of a clear framework of the factors that need consideration for an offender to be ready for therapy and thus gain maximum benefits. Here, we examine in greater detail the role of cognition in readiness for rehabilitation in violent offenders. We assess how cognitive processes and distortions common in violent offenders may affect and hamper rehabilitation readiness. Methods for remediation of cognitive factors that diminish readiness, including motivational interviewing, are discussed. We conclude that cognitive factors are critical in the assessment of readiness in violent offenders and therapeutic efforts to enhance engagement.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The reliability and validity of the self-report questionnaire How I Think (HIT), designed to assess self-serving cognitive distortions related to antisocial behavior, was tested among Swedish offender and nonoffender adults and adolescents (N = 364). The results showed self-serving distortions to be more common among offenders and to predict self-reported antisocial behavior when tested among adults. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed, in contrast to earlier findings, that the underlying structure of the HIT was best explained by a three-factor solution with one major cognitive factor, referred to as “criminal mind.” It was concluded that the HIT, after further examination of its structural and divergent validity, could be used as a measure of criminal thinking in adults as well as in adolescents.
    Criminal Justice and Behavior 01/2011; 38(3):286-301. · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following study is an evaluation of the Moderate Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program (MIFVPP). The sample consisted of 298 male federal offenders who participated in the MIFVPP while incarcerated or on release within the community. Participants were assessed pre-, mid-, and postprogram using an assessment battery consisting of self-report questionnaires and facilitator-rated evaluation scales. Results of the study found uniform and significant (p < .001) improvement for pre and post program change in the self-report questionnaires and in the facilitator ratings. A positive improvement in motivation, whether assessed by the participant or facilitator, was associated with improvement in program outcomes and significant within, between, and interaction effects were found when participant program performance over time was compared among grouped postprogram ratings of motivation. The implication for the efficacy of addressing offender motivation to change in intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions is discussed.
    Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12/2011; 27(6):1176-96. · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review of the literature investigates the possibilities of the incorporation of neurofeedback into the repertoire of forensic psychotherapy. After a brief description of the method, an overview of the empirical evidence of its efficacy in specific areas of treatment is presented. This evidence is then translated into possible applications of neurofeedback in various areas of offender treatment including domestic violence, various other forms of violent and anti-social behavior, certain forms of sexually abusive behavior, and criminal behavior of an obsessive–compulsive nature. It is stressed in this review that neurofeedback is still a relatively new subject of empirical research. Therefore, more research is needed to establish its value for the field of forensic psychotherapy more precisely.
    Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 04/2011; 22(2):223-242. · 0.88 Impact Factor


Available from
May 20, 2014