Willingness, Confidence, and Knowledge to Work with Adolescent Sex Offenders: An Evaluation of Training Workshops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing attention is being paid to best practice in mental health sciences. One crucial aspect of this is the extent to which the mental health workforce has the knowledge and skills to implement state-of-the-art interventions. Recently, evidence has indicated that sexual offending often begins in adolescence, can be a persistent disorder when left untreated, and is associated with a range of other mental health problems in the perpetrator and subsequently in victims. A small number of evaluations of treatment programs are appearing but little work has appeared addressing the issue of how the workforce is equipped, or can be trained, to work with this challenging population. In this paper we present data on the effects of training on knowledge, skills, confidence, and willingness, to work with this client group. Trainees were 107 mental health workers who attended training workshops provided throughout Queensland, Australia by the Griffith Adolescent Forensic Assessment and Treatment Centre. Results showed that the measures developed for assessing training effects were change sensitive and valid. Training was associated with increases in self-rated skills, confidence, knowledge, and willingness to work with this population, and these changes were maintained for the follow-up sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".