Goal Attainment Scaling with Sexual Offenders: A Measure of Clinical Impact at Posttreatment and at Community Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of cognitive-behavioral interventions was assessed for 28 low-moderate risk and 20 high-risk sexual offenders on conditional release to the Greater Toronto Area. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS--T. Hogue, 1994) for sexual offenders was used to rate clinical and motivational elements of treatment taken from reports written at pretreatment, posttreatment, and after 3 months of community follow-up. Results indicated that both groups of offenders benefited from treatment, although low-moderate risk offenders showed consistently better results on all measures. Performance along nonrelapse prevention related dimensions increased from pretreatment to posttreatment and remained relatively steady in the community. Relapse prevention related treatment components showed a steady increase from pretreatment throughout follow-up in the community for low-moderate risk offenders, but not for high-risk offenders. Both groups improved substantially in level of motivation from pretreatment to posttreatment; however, only those in the low-moderate risk group maintained their motivation levels once released to the community. These results are discussed with respect to the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral treatment of sexual offenders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".