Group treatment for men with intellectual disability and sexually abusive behavior: Service user views
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.
Available from: Jan Martin Winter
- "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) "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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.
[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.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.