Group treatment for men with intellectual disability and sexually abusive behaviour: service user views.
ABSTRACT Men with intellectual disability (ID) and sexually abusive behaviour are a disempowered and marginalised group. Nevertheless, as service users, they can be consulted and involved in a variety of different ways, including ascertaining their views of the services they receive.
A group of 16 men with ID and sexually abusive behaviour were interviewed to ascertain their views approximately 2 months after completing a 1-year group cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) for sexual offending. Two raters independently reviewed interview transcripts and participant responses were summarised.
The most salient components of treatment recalled by participants were: sex education; legal and illegal behaviours and their consequences; and discussions about specific sexual assaults. Only 3 of the 16 participants stated that they had problems with sexual offending, and only 1 identified that he had learnt about victim empathy, although this is an important component of treatment. Having support, the knowledge that they had the same problems as other group members, and talking through problems, were appreciated as some of the "best things" about the group, while the "worst things" were generally person-specific. Participants had mixed views on talking about their own offences during group sessions and, overall, viewed the experience as difficult but helpful.
Valuable insights into the aspects of treatment that group members found useful were explored. Such insights are often not captured by studies that assess the efficacy of treatment models using treatment-specific measures only, and these are important in defining the quality of services provided.
- SourceAvailable from: Jan Martin Winter
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Alder & Lindsay (2007) Hays et al. (2007) Keeling et al. (2007a,2007b)* Lindsay & Skene (2007) Lindsay et al. (2008a, 2010b*) Prior clinical/psychiatric judgment/case files Gray et al. (2007) Lindsay et al. (2008a)* Lunsky et al. (2007) McGrath et al. (2007a,2007b) Morrissey et al. (2007a*,b*; 2010) Proctor & Beail (2007)* Oliver et al. (2007) Rice et al. (2008) Rose & Gerson (2009) Stupperich et al. (2009) Self-report Langevin & Curnoe (2010)* Screening device/quick test and adaptation Elbeheri et al. (2009) Frize et al. (2008) "
ABSTRACT: Research on offenders with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in the criminal justice arena is on the rise, reflected by a growing number of relevant publications each year. However, there is a long recognized methodological problem that hampers the comparability of empirical studies and that raises doubts about the accuracy of prevalence rates, comorbidities, and various correlates and characteristics. In this paper we will argue that the crux of the problem can, on the one hand, be found in the plurality of assessment methods for intelligence and adaptive functioning, which are not all sufficiently reliable and valid. On the other hand, assessment of IQ in criminal justice and mental health-related areas appears to be informed more by practical aspects and needs rather than grounded in a solid theoretical model. Hence, we suggest that the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence has potential value in this regard, and deserves a closer look. Finally, we will discuss its incorporation into, and possible implications for, criminal justice practice and future study designs.Behavioral Sciences & the Law 01/2012; 30(1):28-48. DOI:10.1002/bsl.1990 · 0.96 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The present paper reviews some of the most significant findings in the field of forensic issues related to intellectual disability over the last 2 years. Recent publications have explored the prevalence and assessment of intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system, as well as individual characteristics of intellectual disabled offenders. Service by the criminal justice system and treatment of intellectual disabled offenders have also been explored. New insights into violence and sexual offences have been achieved, however identification and evidence-based treatment of intellectual disabled offenders are not widely explored issues. Progress in treatment studies, studies of the function of the criminal justice system and risk assessments have resulted in improvements in these aspects during recent years. The wide range of services involved in successful initiatives has been addressed, but some crucial aspects still receive too little attention. Differences between countries and cultures have not been emphasized, and the progress that has been achieved seems to be confined to countries with a clear policy and organized services for offenders with intellectual disabilities.Current opinion in psychiatry 09/2008; 21(5):449-53. DOI:10.1097/YCO.0b013e328305e5e9 · 3.55 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adults with intellectual disability who commit sexual offences against children are prosecuted and sometimes diverted to mental health facilities for training and treatment. Of the few treatment modalities used with this population, cognitive–behavioral approaches appear to hold most promise. In a preliminary study, we assessed whether three adult sexual offenders with intellectual disability could learn to control their deviant sexual arousal. Using a multiple-baseline design, we evaluated the individuals' ability to use self-control methods, Meditation on the Soles of the Feet, and a Mindful Observation of Thoughts meditation procedure to control their deviant sexual arousal when given relevant printed stimulus materials. Our data show that the individuals were minimally successful when they used their own self-control strategies, more effective with Meditation on the Soles of the Feet, and most effective with Mindful Observation of Thoughts meditation. We discuss the limitations of the study, as well as some reasons why mindfulness-based procedures may be worthy of future investigation for adult sexual offenders with intellectual disability.Psychology Crime and Law 02/2011; Crime & Law(Vol. 17):165-179. DOI:10.1080/10683160903392731 · 0.69 Impact Factor