Labs Flashcards
Risk assessments have changed overtime:
unstructured clinical judgements (i.e., gut judgments without scientific findings, above chance accuracy), risk instruments (i.e., strict instructions of assessing risk and translate into a numerical score for high/medium/low risk groups) static risk factors only with higher accuracy than gen 1, third generation tools introduced dynamic risk factors provides severity and imminence of recidivism, focus on using third gen tools in a meaningful way to help the offender get better.
unstructured clinical judgement, actuarial, structured clinical judgement.
pateint z
• Z’ scored a 5 on Static-99R
• Possible range is -3 to 12, but the median is
about a score of 2
• Absolute risk
• Individuals who have been convicted of
sexual offences with similar characteristics
to ‘Z’ tend to sexually reoffend at the rate of
15% over 5 years
• Relative risk
• Places him in Level IVa: Above average risk
• 89th percentile
• Individuals who have been convicted of
sexual offences with this score are 2.7
times more likely to reoffend compared to
individuals with a typical (i.e., median) score
“Intuitive Theories” Theory of Child Sexual Offending:
Tony and Ward’s single factor theory which
outlines (5) common cognitive distortions
or schema’s that sexual offenders hold that
contribute to the onset and maintenance
of child sexual offending.
Single factor theories explain one factor
that contributes to Sexual offending i.e.,
cognitive distortions.
Shares similarities with other scientific
theory but lacks the rigorous empirical
testing like other theories.
The proposed schemas distort their
perceptions and behaviour towards
children and can lead to the onset of child
sex offending.
- Child as a Sexual Object:
a. Children are perceived to be capable of
desiring or enjoying sex and hold adult
motivations.
b. E.g., instigating the contact, must have
enjoyed it otherwise you would have said
no or stopped me, curious about the birds
and the bee’s, I should have stopped you. - Nature of Harm:
a. Belief that the sexual molestation is not
harmful or is beneficial to the child.
b. E.g., they say I hurt you but we both know
that’s not true; you could have stopped
me if you wanted to, I didn’t go as far as
others, I would never hurt you. - Uncontrollability:
a. Belief that the offending behaviour is
outside of their control.
b. E.g., alcohol lowered his impulse control,
and he couldn’t stop himself when around
her, his wife was cold to him and he
needed her. - Entitlement:
a. No examples in this case study but is the
belief that the offenders’ needs supersede
those of others. - Dangerous World:
a. The world is a dangerous place and
where no one or only children can be
trusted.
b. E.g., wife was cold and turned to child for
safety, no one has as much fun as we do.
What treatment would you recommend for this case study? Which intuitive theory[s] would you focus on?
The two most prominent intuitive theories
in this case study are the belief that
children are sexual objects that hold
agency, adult desires and enjoyment of
sex. The second, the minimization of harm;
we would want to ensure that he can take
accountability for his actions and
understand the negative impacts of his
behaviour on his victim.
What cognitive distortion[s] are each of these?
“I liked the beer too much and that made it difficult when you were around”
“I should have known better than a cheeky, inquisitive little girl with a massive curiosity about everything (including the birds and the bees)”
“We got carried away because we got on so well”
“Always remember that even though you were the one who asked me, I should have kept you at bay”
“There are guys in here who have really done some harmful things (you know, physically wrong things). You know that I would never do that to you don’t you?”
“We both know that isn’t true—that’s how you managed to keep our secret for so long isn’t it? What made you decide to tell someone?”
“you were always waiting to see me. These people are never going to know what it was really like are they?”
“I always stopped before it got too far. That’s the problem with some of the people in here. They never did.”
“I’m sure you would have told me off, if I’d done something that bad! Sure as hell, I certainly would never have gotten a father’s day card either!”
“it’s just that, your mother had been so cold towards me I felt like I needed someone who would understand me”
(A) Uncontrolabilty:
o this statement shows that the offender
is working on the assumption that he
is uncontrollable when intoxicated. He
is attributing abuse to external factors.
(B) Child as a Sexual Object:
o shows that although the offender says
he “should have known better” he is
still making reference to the child as a
sexual object and wanting to know
about the birds and the bees. Implies
capacity for child enjoying sexual
contact.
(C) Child as a Sex Object, uncontrollability,
dangerous world:
o the “we” is suggesting the child was
able to make the decision herself, just
like an adult (child as a sex object). The
“got carried away” suggests
uncontrollability, and “we got on so well”
suggests the child was giving him more
acceptance and love than an adult
would (dangerous world).
(D) Child as a sexual object:
o although we don’t know what the
child’s behavior was, it is saying that the
child had sexual intent.
(E) Nature of harm:
o because this guy is basically saying that
his actions could have been a lot worse
and his abuse wasn’t really that harmful.
(F) Child as a sexual object:
o it implies that the child kept the secret
because she was enjoying the abuse.
(G) Child as a sexual object:
o implies the child was wanting the sexual
activity and looking forward to seeing
her partner (much like an adult in a
sexual relationship).
(H) Nature of harm:
o “it could have been worse” philosophy.
(I) Child as a sexual object and Nature of
harm:
o implies the child was probably enjoying
it because she didn’t say “no. “that bad”
also has tones of “could have been
worse”
(J) Dangerous World:
o the wife was rejecting, and the child
appeared more reliable and warmer in
comparison.
(5) Evaluation Criteria of the “intuitive theories” theory:
- Empirical Adequacy:
a. Is the theory be supported by empirical
evidence?
b. E.g., intuitive theories is mixed. - Internal Coherence:
a. Does the theory integrate key constructs
in a coherent and logical manner? Does it
contain inconsistencies?
b. E.g., intuitive theories have good internal
coherency. - Explanatory Depth:
a. Does the theory explain the deep
underlying mechanisms?
b. Lack of or weak explanatory depth as it
fails to take into account have schemas
change overtime as experiences provide
new information that is integrated into our
schemas. - Heuristic Value:
a. Does the theory generate new
predictions, research and knowledge?
Can it be applied to the development of
treatment and prevention design?
b. Very good, intuitive theories have become
a foundation from which further work is
built, influencing treatment and future
research. - Unifying Power:
a. Does the theory unify existing theories or
gaps in previous literature to provide
novel insights?
b. Good unifying power as it combines
different distorted beliefs shared in sexual
offenders which contribute to the onset
and maintenance of offending within a
cognitive framework. - Simplicity:
a. Is the theory simplistic and easy to
communicate and implement?
b. Yes, it’s a simple theory. - External Consistency:
a. Is it congruent with existing theories?
b. It does fit well with existing theories.
*these factors are used to evaluate theories to see what level of truth they provide.
